Blogger problems continue, and more on ‘royals’

Try as I might, I can’t get a comment posted via the Blogger comment system. I’ve tried leaving comments on others’ Blogger blogs, with no success, and I tried replying to a commenter here on this blog  ‘Jacobin conservative’ thread from a couple of days ago, with no luck. I finally resorted to replying by e-mail. I don’t know what the problem is but it’s annoying.

But to return to my points about how a lack of exemplars and leaders leads to an exaltation of other, usually baser, people, here’s an illustration. I turned on Sky News podcasts and saw a headline this morning about the Windsors visiting the USA — New York, and Harlem to be specific, and I read that the Windsors were meeting ‘American kings‘, namely ‘King’ Le Bron James.  The article linked in the previous sentences tells us that other ‘American royals’ granting an audience, or should I say receiving obeisance from the Windsors included Beyonce and Jay-Z.

Really. This is the world we live in.
And there is some credibility to the labeling of the above-mentioned ‘celebrities’ being called ‘royalty.’ They, and the likes of the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, and whoever else is regularly featured on the supermarket tabloid covers, are exalted and coddled and lauded as real royalty once was. Actual royals today don’t receive anything like as much remuneration, or the deference these media creations receive.

Most Americans seem to view royalty with a jaundiced eye, to say the least, and many Americans detest aristocracy, with a passion. I still say it’s mostly caused by pride (“I don’t bow down to anybody; I’m as good as anybody’ ‘who are royals anyway? They’re useless parasites.‘ And so on) and the other cause is envy. Class envy is very strong, at least where royalty is concerned. And there is a kind of upside-down snobbery, with the idea that being an ‘average person’ makes one superior to the ‘useless rich’, an idea which doesn’t hold water in most cases.

Knighthoods, in old Europe, were usually conferred on people who had actually done distinguished service to the sovereign or to the kingdom and the people thereof. Now, knighthoods are handed out to people like Elton John, Bob Geldof, or Paul McCartney — not to mention titles being conferred on many people of foreign birth. No doubt titles do not mean what they used to mean.

Royalty or hereditary aristocracy could, in the past, usually claim to have had distinguished family members, people whose accomplishments included military prowess or superior intelligence. But do celebrities really earn their vast wealth and the fawning acclaim they receive? Most of them may be has-beens, destitute in a matter of years, with most of their vast earnings squandered on hedonism and ‘conspicuous consumption’; mansions, expensive cars and clothing, travel, ‘partying’ and so on. Many end up in bankruptcy court while still relatively young. And who will remember them when some new media darling replaces them? Many of our athletic ‘aristocrats’ are involved in criminal acts; I need not name names. If not, their athletic career is bound to be short, as athletes are ‘too old’ by 35 or 40 at the latest. Their stars fade, and others surpass their athletic accomplishments in the record books.

But do we have an aristocracy? We do, if you think of aristocracy or royalty as a group or class of people who receive ‘tribute money’ a guaranteed income, along with deference, fawning attention, and the right to demand punishment of those who displease them or fail to bow down to them. Yes, we do have an aristocracy, one which may not be criticized or spoken ill of. And maybe those people who held an audience with the Windsors are part of that aristocracy.

4 thoughts on “Blogger problems continue, and more on ‘royals’

  1. It all sounds good in theory, but if I consider the reality, I get less enthusiastic.

    I have recently moved from South Africa to a Commonwealth country. In five years, I can apply for citizenship, which will require me to swear allegiance to the English monarch. In five years, that could be Charles. I don't know if I could do that. Can you imagine him with real power?

    I remember reading about the policeman who investigated the case of Lord Lucan, who murdered his children's nanny by mistake (he was trying to kill his wife). He was shocked and frustrated by the attitude of the fugitive's noble friends, who all regarded themselves as a superior breed, above the law. Lucan was never caught.

    Ideally, authority ought to be based on moral and intellectual superiority. Unfortunately, that seems ipso facto to disqualify any who seek it.


  2. I found that when I don't allow third-party cookies, I can't post. So I either allow third-party cookies or make an exception for Same with disqus.


  3. Axe Head – thanks for the suggestion. I can log in to comment now, but that blasted 'captcha' word recognition thing is there. I will have to see if I can disable that.

    Analog Man – I take your points. The trouble is human nature. There's no perfect system. Our American founding fathers said explicitly that our system (a republic) would only function as it should with a moral and religious citizenry. Well, sad to say, we have a small number of really moral or religious citizens now, and that's not even taking all the millions of immigrants into account. We know they mostly come form non-civilized and/or violent countries. And they will be voting and helping elect our leaders soon.

    But do most of the modern European royals have any real political power or even any influence? I see them as being puppets or figureheads, but then most of our elected officials are errand boys doing someone's bidding but it isn't 'our' bidding, unfortunately.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s