In 1977 I was a six-year-old child and incredibly excited by the Silver Jubilee. The Queen had been on the throne for 25 years, and my little boy's mind could barely comprehend the extent of the celebrations.
It was an incredible affair for a child in the pre-internet age. Damn, it was before my parents even had color television. It was like being in another world.
Almost every street was unashamedly emblazoned in red, white, and blue. Posters and messages of good cheer seemed to be in every window, while triangles of bunting crisscrossed between the streetlights everywhere one walked.
Meanwhile, decidedly British merchandise was ubiquitous—e.g., tea towels and teacups adorned with pictures of the Queen. Along with cookie tins, jigsaw puzzles, boxes of chocolates, and many other charming but humble amusements from a bygone time.
More incredibly, tables lined the entire length of streets with the neighborhood gathering for tea and cake and sandwiches. It was something that I didn't understand. And it was absolutely amazing.
At the time, it looked as if the country had something to celebrate, but in truth, it was broke and broken from endless industrial action and a failed effort to create a socialist utopia that was quickly crashing to the ground.
The country needed a pick-me-up, something to bring folks together under one roof of healing.
Something positive—Like a big party.
Annus Horribilis Duo
It's been quite the miserable year for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II—even worse than the "annus horribilis" she had in 1992. Exactly why she decided to drop that bit of Latin into her annual Christmas speech to the Commonwealth, we shall never know, primarily as it only served to make schoolchildren snigger around the country and top off her horrible year with a significant amount of derision.
Anyway, that aside, in April 2021, HM sadly lost her husband of 73 years—the 99-year-old Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. No matter what one thinks about the monarchy, it seems only decent to have sympathy for a loss of such a long-time and significant companion, even if his passing was not unexpected.
2021 also saw a "hard Megxit" take place as the Queen's ginger-grandson, Prince Harry, and his American wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and their newborn son, Archie, headed from temporary accommodation in Canada to the United States of America.
There, the first American-born great-grandchild of the Queen was named after the matriarch’s family nickname, Lilibet, which was quite sweet, I thought.
[Fun Fact: Contrary to the ill-informed rantings of the tabloids, the great-grandchildren of a monarch who are not in the direct line of succession (i.e., Charles>William>George) are not Princes or Princesses—it's no diss on Meghan or Americans at all.]
Although the adult Sussexes officially hold the title, Royal Highness, they will not use the styling nor represent the crown in public life. This is probably for the best as after the disastrous interview with Oprah, their status with the British public has never been so low.
It was a wrong move. Accusations of racism did not sit well against a 95-year-old woman who will reach 70 years serving as Head of State next year. A job she's done with dignity, always managing not to embarrass herself nor her nation. And no matter if one is a monarchist or a republican, left or right, rich or poor, one must surely agree that's a remarkable accomplishment.
However, to add insult to injury, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, has been embroiled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The Duke is accused of raping a seventeen-year-old young woman 21 years ago and being part of Epstein's ring of perverts, which is something HM and the family didn't need in 2021.
Further, on November 30th, 2021, HMQE2 will be saying goodbye to one of her Commonwealth realms for good. Although declaring independence from the UK almost 55 years ago, Barbados finally gave the Queen the boot as Head of State.
The government announced last year that;
The time had come for Barbados to fully leave our colonial past behind.
The tiny nation of 285,000 voted that Dame Sandra Mason, 72, who served as the last governor-general, will be the first-ever president of the country as it becomes a republic. Congratulations!
It has been well-reported over the years that Her Majesty has a particular fondness for the ever-dwindling nations of the Commonwealth, so yet another one falling away during her reign is likely to be particularly upsetting for the Queen this year.
The Queen Gets Sick
HMQ2 is the longest-serving female head of state in history. If she outlives her mother or even her late husband, in three years she'll overtake Louis XIV of France as the longest-serving head of state in all of recorded history. Even so, the fact is, she is getting ever closer to that permanent underground nap every day.
Recently HM has been too sick to perform her Queenly duties, which is a first, and there have been reports that doctors advised her to give up her nightly cocktail. Would you at 95? If so, she must have no faith in the Prince of Wales. Or, maybe she wants to ensure that her Platinum Jubilee will go as planned next year, i.e., with her still alive.
Either way, when the inevitable catches up with her, what happens next?
King William V?
The once handsome young prince with his attractive young bride seemed like a big win for the Royal family. However, William is now bald as a coot, and Kate is a slightly above-average-looking, middle-aged woman. So, essentially, the shine has worn off. But, even saying that most people would prefer the "top job," skipped Charles, Prince of Wales, and went straight to the Duke of Cambridge.
That, however, will not happen unless the Queen outlives her son. And as he is 72 years old, that is possible but very unlikely as he's a lifelong farmer of organic food and legitimately decades ahead of the times when it comes to healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle.
Also, there is no legal process to skip a generation. The title of this article is The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King. It is written like that because that is how succession works. There is no gap; there is no papal conclave-style vote; it is an instantaneous power transfer.
Anyone hoping for anything else, well, should forget about it.
King Charles III?
What could stop him from ascension? Nothing short of the collapse of the country. And Queen Elizabeth II probably has no more than a decade to get her affairs in order. Meanwhile, there is no way the public will agree to change the law, nor could it be achieved in that timeframe, especially as everyone considers it rude to bring up the question of the succession before the Queen has passed.
But then, "Long live the King." You see—It's a trap.
Charles says he wants to be a reformer. I have a feeling he will be the destroyer.
Under the reign of King Charles III, the respect given to the Queen and her long and devoted service will be all gone. What will come next?
Here is my speculation based upon reading and following the talk of republicans both in the UK and the Commonwealth.
First, I think we will see in quick order a breaking up of Scotland and England. A more robust autonomy for Wales. And, finally, one Ireland united and free.
We will undoubtedly see Australia, Canada, and New Zealand become republics and give up their connection to the monarchy and the Commonwealth under KC3.
Republican movements are strong in these countries. The anachronism of a foreign head of state will be tolerated no more once the current Queen receives her last curtsy and, “Mam” as in ham. Before her final;
And, what do you do?
Ultimately, the longest-serving Prince of Wales in British history will likely not have very long to do the job he has wasted his entire life waiting to be gifted. He will “oversee” the end of the Commonwealth and leave England bereft of friends and isolated from Europe. And then what?
King William V, this time?
Sometime in his reign, KW5 will realize that his ginger brother was correct all along. He will spare his son, Prince George, from a lifetime of living in a gilded cage and give up the crown to a new leader of the people, who will lift England—the Scots and the Welsh and Irish are long gone by now—into a reality in which China controls the actualized world. However, we will live our lives almost entirely within a digital dungeon of domains being whoever we want to be.
What good is the pomp and pageantry, the uniforms, and the fake medals when the modern world is calling?
What are the pluses and minuses of keeping the monarchy?
Although there are small monarchies worldwide, if you ask anyone, there is only one, The Queen.
The British monarchy is a USP [Unique Selling Point] in world affairs. It arguably tells a longer story than any other in the western world. Creates a historical framework for many world events, and was the face of the largest empire the world has ever known. It is still an endless source of fascination for those who read tabloids at the supermarket or watch tabloid TeeVee. And, at least in part, it gives Britons an advantage over others, especially in the United States. I don’t get it, but many think the accent is hot and makes one sound intelligent.
Conversely, the monarchy is at the pinnacle of the British class system. And that is no longer, and perhaps never was a good thing. Although, I don't know, If it were genuinely aspirational, it might have been okay?
The government closed the doors to becoming a peer of the realm. The last hereditary peer, the 1st Earl of Stockton, was the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. His elevation to the peerage was in 1984.
[Public Service Announcement: All online advertising claiming the sale of Scottish or Irish titles such as Lord or Laird, or Lady, or Knighthoods, i.e., Sir, are not worth the ink they are printed on.]
So, after that, it became a club for only those born into it, which is so not cool.
Therefore, if the British no longer find it aspirational to be an Earl or a Marquis, should the title continue to be recognized in law?
Otherwise, by way of an impenetrable ceiling, it is enshrining class into the system forever.
It is that creation of a caste system that I find most insidious. Being kept in one's place by an ancient system reduces one's chances in life to a game of who's your daddy?
If one needs further proof, consider this: 20 of the 55 Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, including the current eejit, Boris Johnson, went to the same High School, i.e., Eton College. Seven went to Harrow School, and six attended Westminster School. This means 36% of British Prime Ministers attended one high school, and a further 24% went to only two more from a total of more than 4,200 state and private high schools in the UK.
I find that fecking despicable. And, as I have pointed out, the Queen is the top of that highly dysfunctional social pyramid scheme.
Ultimately, it is all for show. It's what the English are excellent at, i.e., theatre.
The window dressing, the bollocks of the Royals mostly wearing unearned uniforms and medals, and living in fantastically overpriced palaces gives the UK the confidence of a shy kid wearing a big hat at a party—it's cute, but it isn't a real personality.
And, finally, if they throw in the towel on the Royals, the country must come up with an actual plan to replace "the firm" that retains an element of British historical value while being modern and not too political. Because heaven knows, nobody wants to go down the road of the USA where every single thing is politicized and divisive.
The goal should not be to have the UK destroy its USP (Unique Selling Point) and turn it into a third-rate Finland. Yawn. But the country is headed in that direction. So, what's the plan? What do the hundreds of thousands of anti-monarchists and republicans want? Nobody is going to care about their kvetching without an idea for a replacement.
Me? Absolutely no idea. Even though I do care, I'm no longer over there.
I wonder if any of y'all have any thoughts on the matter? Molloy