A republic, and you can keep it
After a rain you can expect mushrooms, and after a royal scandal you can expect Guardian op-eds calling for the abolition of the monarchy. Britain should be a republic like the United States, eh? At least you have a democracy, my island friends. If the Tories lose by three million votes next month, Boris has to stop being prime minister. Trump lost by three million votes and we can't get rid of him.
The problem is not the monarchy -- what are you going to call yourselves, the United Republic? It sounds like one of those hammered-together Middle Eastern caliphates. The problem is, as the tragic child suicide says in Jude the Obscure, they are too many. You need to designate half a dozen who have a realistic prospect of succession and make the rest get jobs. Real jobs, not judging flower shows. Better for you, better for them. The Duke of Gloucester was an architect, which takes a certain amount of intelligence and a lot of hard work. Then his father and older brother died and he had to give it up -- god forbid a royal duke should hold a job -- and I don't know what he does now. Andrew could easily learn to drive an Uber or clean up vacant lots. His daughters, with some training, would be adequate sales assistants at M&S. (Whenever I see them I think their step-sister Cinderella must be home doing the laundry.) Until quite recently, Jimmy Carter worked on building sites, and he's 95.
The point is, a republic won't solve your problems. You tried abolishing monarchy four centuries ago, and you got a dictator. There's no other way to describe Old Noll, he was a Puritan Mussolini. When he died your ancestors begged Charlie Stuart to come home. But it's very dangerous for the head of the government to be the head of state. Gives them ideas. I know how restive you Brits get if a general election campaign lasts more than six weeks. How would you like to live in a republic where the campaigning never stops? You have an almost perfect system, and with a little tweaking it can go on for at least another four hundred years. By then, we may have recovered from the cataclysm of Trump.
The problem is not the monarchy -- what are you going to call yourselves, the United Republic? It sounds like one of those hammered-together Middle Eastern caliphates. The problem is, as the tragic child suicide says in Jude the Obscure, they are too many. You need to designate half a dozen who have a realistic prospect of succession and make the rest get jobs. Real jobs, not judging flower shows. Better for you, better for them. The Duke of Gloucester was an architect, which takes a certain amount of intelligence and a lot of hard work. Then his father and older brother died and he had to give it up -- god forbid a royal duke should hold a job -- and I don't know what he does now. Andrew could easily learn to drive an Uber or clean up vacant lots. His daughters, with some training, would be adequate sales assistants at M&S. (Whenever I see them I think their step-sister Cinderella must be home doing the laundry.) Until quite recently, Jimmy Carter worked on building sites, and he's 95.
The point is, a republic won't solve your problems. You tried abolishing monarchy four centuries ago, and you got a dictator. There's no other way to describe Old Noll, he was a Puritan Mussolini. When he died your ancestors begged Charlie Stuart to come home. But it's very dangerous for the head of the government to be the head of state. Gives them ideas. I know how restive you Brits get if a general election campaign lasts more than six weeks. How would you like to live in a republic where the campaigning never stops? You have an almost perfect system, and with a little tweaking it can go on for at least another four hundred years. By then, we may have recovered from the cataclysm of Trump.
posted by Buttermilk Sky at 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home