What’s With All The Coverage of the British Monarchy?

The passing last week of Queen Elizabeth II saddened all of us. She was a great woman who epitomized what used to be called noblesse oblige, the idea that nobility extends beyond mere entitlement, requiring people who hold such status to fulfill social responsibilities. Queen Elizabeth understood this sense of duty from the very outset of her ascension to the throne at the age of 25 when she said, “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” On another occasion, she said, “Our modern world places such heavy demands on our time and attention that the need to remember our responsibilities to others is greater than ever.” But as much as the world will miss Queen Elizabeth, the reality is that the British monarchy is an anachronism that only serves as a reminder of the terrible oppression perpetrated by the British Empire through the ages. And while a majority of Britons may be content to spend hundreds of millions of their tax dollars to support the royal family (and some say that the tourist dollars generated by Buckingham Palace actually are a net positive), it is undeniable that the majority of members of the royal family are unworthy heirs of Queen Elizabeth’s legacy, especially most of her children. But while Britain may still be enthralled with the vestiges of a long-gone era, what makes the major American media think that we are? The non-stop coverage of her death, funeral proceedings, and accession by Charles has been ridiculous. This is 2022, not 1772. It’s time to relegate (the term used in the English Premier Soccer League when the bottom three teams are dropped down to the minor league at the end of the season) the monarchy to what it really is — an historical footnote that is irrelevant in the world today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.