Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Answering Republicans on the Jubilee
It is not much of an excuse, but it is something. The republican French went above and beyond in 1989 celebrating the bicentenary of the French Revolution even though (ignoring the horribly bloodthirsty nature of it) since that time the monarchy was restored more than once and the revolutionary regime has gone through one “State”, two empires and five different republics. The Spanish tried republicanism twice and each ended in disaster, the first republic in Germany lasted barely two decades before falling to dictatorship, the Italian republic has existed only since 1946 and most of the republics of Eastern Europe, in their current forms, date from only the fall of the Soviet Union. So, when it comes to republics, save perhaps for tiny San Marino, longevity is not their strong suit. In any event, it does not even seem to occur to them the Diamond Jubilee is a fairly rare and historic occasion, even when including the other monarchies of the world of which the British and Commonwealth monarchy is one of the oldest still in existence on earth. They also seem totally oblivious to the fact that their country IS a monarchy, whether they like it or not, and national celebrations in any country do not depend on the unanimous consent of every individual person within that country in order to be held.
Quite the contrary, in spite of republicans in countries like the U.K. and Commonwealth Realms wailing about being ill-treated, they have far more rights and freedoms than most monarchists in republican lands. They certainly get far more coverage in the media and opportunity for “free speech” as they like to moan on and on about. I challenge any who may doubt me to put my words to the test. Go on to any of the internet video websites and you will find numerous debates held in Canada, Great Britain and Australia on the subject of monarchy versus a republic, many on the major television networks. These people are not being ignored, they are not being silenced and they are certainly not be driven off in handcuffs for advocating treason. Having done that, try to find such interviews and debates on television news programs in any of the republics of the world in which monarchists are allowed to make their case. Go ahead, we’ll all wait here. (…) Okay, in the meantime, perhaps we should move on. The fact is that in many if not most republics, monarchy is officially outlawed, it is forbidden and not at all considered to be even a topic for discussion or serious debate. Republicans in modern monarchies demand for themselves precisely what their comrades in republics deny to others.
So, we have republicans who claim to be the champions of “equality” getting quite fussy if they do not receive special treatment. This in spite of the fact that the monarchists in established republics receive far less consideration than they do. However, you seldom hear monarchists making many complaints about it. You seldom see angry monarchists holding public protests to spoil republican celebrations or national holidays. There are, I think, primarily two reasons for this. One is that monarchists will, in most cases, go along in honoring their country even if they heartily despise the government that is in charge of it. Whereas republicans tend to despise the entire history of their country before “their” side came to be in charge of things, monarchists (again, in most cases, not all) love their country and their people because they are their own, regardless of whether they think they have always done right or not. Secondly, in most cases, monarchists are realistic enough to accept facts as they are. They may not like the situation in which they find themselves, but they accept the reality of it and deal with it. They do not expect the whole world around them to bend to their own desires or for their enemies to treat them to any special favors. Republicans might give it a try.