Recently, two royals gave interviews; Britain’s Prince Harry and Princess Marie of Denmark (wife of Prince Joachim). Of course, of the two, the interview with Prince Harry, for Newsweek magazine, got the most attention as any news involving the British Royal Family invariably does; they are playing to a larger audience after all. However, that might not be a bad thing as the interview given by Princess Marie could easily be taken as shockingly outrageous by the oh-so-sensitive “social justice warrior” crowd. Needless to say, I loved it for the very same reasons they would find it offensive. It is probably for the best that fewer people will see it because I can see (knowing how these SJW types think) how it could be used to portray Princess Marie as a horrible person (like me), which she certainly is not. This is, though, the common thread between the two interviews because, as did the son of Albion who sent me the article, I could tell from the headline alone that this would be a gift to the traitorous republicans of Britain and the Commonwealth and I knew exactly how they would (and have) twisted the Prince’s honest observations to fit their agenda.
Starting with Prince Harry (an article on the interview can be found
here), the one line that was singled out from the entire interview to plaster all over the headlines was his relating that no one in the House of Windsor really wants the “job” of being monarch. He said, “Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.” It is no coincident that this one line was singled out for the most attention rather than the Prince’s follow-up remarks about the dedication to duty the Royal Family has and the importance of the monarchy for people in Britain and across the Commonwealth. No, they seize on the line about no one wanting the top job because it fits in well with a traditional republican narrative, I call it the “nice guy” republican narrative. This is the one that says, ‘see, the royals don’t event want to live the sort of life they do, they have no freedom, so the best thing we could do for them is to abolish the monarchy and set them free from their gilded cage!’ or some such similar nonsense.
This is a typical republican response to monarchies that enjoy high popularity as it allows them to advocate abolishing the monarchy without attacking the monarch but, rather, posing as the ‘saviors’ of the Royal Family. The problem with this is that it is one, rare, republican argument which actually has facts behind it, what is despicable is the completely dishonest and disingenuous way they use it. The truth is that, yes, the royals do not have quite so envious a position as people think. They are constantly under tremendous scrutiny, have obligations they never asked for, have much of their lives planned out months in advance and have less personal freedom than anyone in their country. They have no freedom of movement (for the monarch anyway), no freedom of speech and no right to vote among others. They have all of the stress and scrutiny of a position of authority but none of the power to go along with it. Were they to lose their royal status, they would simply be very wealthy private citizens and could live their lives without a care in the world or any concern for public opinion. I have no doubt it would be quite liberating.
The republicans, however, seldom actually fool anyone with their supposed concern for the happiness and freedom of the royals. They are, after all, a big reason why the royals have so little. However, while what the Prince said was doubtless true, the Crown being an awesome responsibility that no sane person would want if they truly understood the consequences of it, he should not have said what he did as it simply does not play well with the modern public. Thanks to the media, academia and so on, all of which is inundated with Marxist “values” far too many people have been taught to view everything with an envious lens. The last thing the modern masses want to hear is someone complaining about his life who lives in a palace, dates bombshells, skis in the Alps and so on while they live in a council house and eat takeaway. It’s not right, it’s not healthy but that people for you. The idea that common people live poorly because royals live well is a canard that should be obvious yet it has been deployed to some effect at least as far back as the French Revolution, so it should not be discounted.
Most concerning to me was Prince Harry’s expressed desire, including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to “modernize” the monarchy when their time does come. I do not like the sound of that, mostly because I am gun-shy about anything involving modernity. In my experience, whenever anyone talks of “modernizing” something the result is usually plainer, uglier, less meaningful and more ridiculous than it was before. However, it is probably not a coincidence that this interview was with an American periodical and if Prince Harry sticks with his current girlfriend he will certainly gain a great deal more attention in the United States and break new ground. If the Prince and Meghan Markle take this all the way, Meghan could become the first mixed-race American actress to become a royal princess. That would certainly please the diversity crowd. However, even then, as with President Obama, I can already predict that, being half Irish-American, there will be some who insist she is not “Black enough” to count. Of course, Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein married a 100% African-American some years ago, giving Europe their first Afro-European prince but, of course, that is Liechtenstein which hardly shows up on the radar, they are not *technically* royal and I am quite confident that more than 99% of Americans have no idea where Liechtenstein is or even what it is.
Anyway, the bottom line is that while Prince Harry would certainly get a great deal of attention if he stuck with his current ‘flavor of the month’ the sort of crowd that would be most impressed by that is the same sort that is never satisfied so pandering to them would be futile. However, it does also provide a tenuous connection with the subject of the second interview, Princess Marie of Denmark (her interview can be read
here) who is the second wife of Prince Joachim of Denmark, his first wife being Alexandra Manley, a mixed race woman of Euro-Asian ancestry from Hong Kong who was previously Princess Alexandra, now Countess of Frederiksborg and soon to be no longer on the government payroll. Their breakup was the first royal divorce in Denmark since 1846, so, rather significant. Both have since remarried, Prince Joachim to Marie Cavallier, a native of Paris, France in 2008. Her father-in-law is also French and both converted from Catholicism to the Lutheran Church of Denmark for their marriages.
Princess Marie gave a perfectly pleasant and perfectly frank interview and came off looking like an altogether nice person, open, honest and good natured. I think more highly of her after reading it. However, as stated as the outset, she did say some things that the SJW crowd would be quick to pick apart and pounce on if they were to actually read it (which I doubt any will). Some parts would likely have raised more eyebrows in the past than they would now. Her remark that, coming from France, she had to adjust to how much earlier people start to work in Denmark, would have, in years past, caused some huffing about stereotypes of Gallic laziness versus the Protestant work ethic but I don’t think anyone notices that anymore. What they would, however, surely seize on was her remark that, in explaining how much more trusting Danes seem to be than other people and asked if this had anything to do with the size of the country, “The size probably plays, because the territory is homogeneous. But we must also take into account our very ancient history. We have the oldest monarchy in Europe and are deeply attached to our traditions. At the same time, the country is very modern. Education also plays a great role.”
For those of you fortunate enough not to know how the mind of the fanatic, revolutionary leftist works, saying that a “homogeneous” country is a positive thing is one of the worst things you could possibly do. No, homogeneous societies are bad and only diverse societies are good (at least when it comes to western countries anyway). Princess Marie and any Dane who would say it is a good thing for Denmark to be Danish would certainly get an ear-full from any “social justice warrior” who would berate them as terrible “racists” for such thinking and demand that they acknowledge that Denmark has never been very good and never will be until more Africans, Arabs and Asians are bought in to bring all the benefits of “diversity”. According to these people, Denmark has always been substandard precisely for being so homogeneous. Princess Marie, needless to say, was not thinking of any of this and seems to be an entirely good natured, optimistic type of person. She was, I have no doubt, simply relating what used to be considered common sense; that a small group of people who are alike, share the same values and are generally on the same page will be able to trust each other and get along with each other much easier than if the opposite were true.
Princess Marie was then asked about Prince Joachim, the interviewer pointing out that he is half French. She responded with glowing praise for her hubby, saying that he inherited great qualities from both his parents but emphasizing that, “He’s indeed the perfect Dane…” which I am sure some could find fault with. However, that would be as nothing compared to her answer to a question about the negative portrayals of Denmark, this coming after she related how wonderful she thought Denmark and all things Danish are. The Princess seemed at a loss as to what could possibly be a negative cliché about Denmark so the interviewer proposed the notion that Denmark is a country of Vikings. In an answer that would surely upset the snowflake crowd, Princess Marie brushed this aside, seemingly oblivious to the idea that anyone could possibly consider being associated with the Vikings as a bad thing. She actually agreed with the stereotype but thought it was a positive thing saying, “It’s also true. My husband is never sick. He never goes to the doctor. He’s very tough. He’s quite a Viking. They have very good genetics!”
I really loved this answer. The interviewer was doubtlessly thinking of big, brawny blondes killing and looting as the epitome of what it means to be a Viking. Princess Marie, however, chose to instead take pride in the Vikings as strong, robust people who were very tough, went on to associate her husband with them, in a very positive way, and then just to make sure the SJW types would reach critical mass, praised the genetics of the Vikings, inherently implying that some people have better genes than others. Again, I have no doubt such a thought never entered the Princess’ mind for a moment, but that is just the sort of thing that the people who are constantly on the hunt for something to be offended and outraged over would seize upon as being terribly insensitive, even “racist”. Frankly, I simply found it to be refreshingly positive and very charming that the Princess can be blissfully unaware that such unpleasant and manipulative people exist in the world who might zero in on such innocent remarks. Again, I came away from reading the interview with a higher opinion of Princess Marie than I had previously. I point these examples out simply to show that royals today, in spite of their diminished roles, must tread a very difficult path because their enemies are every watchful, ever deceitful and have no depths they will not stoop to in order to undermine the last vestiges of tradition that exist in the world today.
