Thursday, April 28, 2011

Prince William Weds Mongrel Kate

This wedding violates nature! Prince William is of superior royal blood. Kate Middleton is of inferior blood. She hasn't been bred or cultivated like a fine horse. Her virginity hasn't been protected by a locked chastity belt. Thus, royal little-Willy may be sharing her intimate parts with some common darky she met on vacation in Trinidad. Keeping this lowly tart as a mistress for ten years had precedent. However, if she can fill the royal wife role, who is to say that a low born couldn't fill the king role as well. Besides, it was her duty as a subject to submit her body unto her better, she shouldn't hope for more.

If you disagree with the above sentiments, you have what's called morality. Still, you shouldn't be celebrating the big to-do either. These are some of the foundational concepts of royalty. Monarchs have surely changed. Yet, they've only relinquished as much power and privilege as they've been forced to by public protest or even lethal force. Many nations demanded that South Africa renounce the racist institution of apartheid before embracing them in the world community. William and Kate must renounce this equally-heinous institution before ethical people can fully support them.

Don't say you're celebrating simply because you're proud to be a British citizen. If enough folks were proud of being equal citizens, they'd give these caste-mongers polite notice to vacate all publically-funded buildings and wean themselves off public money. If alleged royals refuse to move or find honest employment, they should be escorted in handcuffs (rather than rudely executed as so many were in the past).

Don't say I can't understand because I'm American. That's why I understand. I've watched many of my countrymen defend the base tradition of slavery, because their pride exceeded their moral compass. I wish William and Kate all the happiness in the world. Nonetheless, only a fool or a knave can laud a public display of ongoing institutionalized racism. William and Kate may very well do the proper thing in time. Let's set a good example by showing them that some commoners know the difference between right and wrong.

In Trafalgar Square is a statue of colonial hardass General Napier. When asked for a response to the Indian tradition of burning widows with their dead husbands, he quipped, "We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and hang them.... You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." Tradition is no excuse for oppression. Britain's medieval caste system may be alive and even fashionably-attired, but ethical people should cast it on the funeral pyre as soon as possible.


  1. What a load of crap

  2. Dear Anonymous,
    Last week, I was looking at the inscriptions in a Mayan jungle temple that document how the earliest conception of royalty in the new world was associated with lighter skin. In the ancient Jewish history chronicles considered scripture by a majority of humanity, I read how the old world's earliest monarchies were established primarily for vanity's sake. Maybe, you'll excuse me if I don't find "load of crap" overwhelming proof that royalty isn't a byproduct of pride and racism.

  3. You ought to show a little more respect to the British monarchy, if it wasn't for them you'd all be speaking Latin right now.

  4. Dear am,
    I never cease to appreciate the global contributions of British culture in law, language, navigation and other areas. However, I don't assume that all these wonderful fruits could only have resulted from some British folks believing they're inherently better than others. Even if I did, that wouldn't justify the principle of royalty. The impressive Mayan pyramids, resulting from monarchy, slavery and blood sacrifice, don't justify these institutions. The American tradition of constant military action has achieved some good fruits, such as the liberation of concentration camp inmates and apparently Osama Bin Laden's demise. Yet, that doesn't mean knee-jerk military reaction is in itself a good thing. If you appreciate British culture as I do, clinging to one of their less-noble customs and deeming any critique disrespectful will not help Britain advance powerfully into the future.

  5. Lyn,

    I'm glad that you took the time to make some critical points about this anachronistic institution. With all the attention from the media it would be easy to get the misconception that these people matter more than anyone else.

  6. Thanks Richard. The more I travel the world, the more I think Thomas Jefferson was right that all people are created with equal value but the more I think he was wrong that this is self evident. We humans seem to have a hard time building self worth without making somebody else less, so this message must be hammered relentlessly. Not one child looking up at the world in hope of affirmation deserves to hear that they're the wrong color or bloodline or whatever. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

  7. I didn't even watch it. First, didn't want to lose the sleep. Secondly, didn't care. I hope Will has prepared Kate for the hell her life is about to become. Fortunately, they're coming into this older than Di was, and hopefully, more wiser. I hope she waits before having children (it's not like the Queen is going to die or step down to give Chuck a crack at the throne, which means Will won't ever get to see it, so there's no rush), because any new couple needs time to get used to being married.

    I do wish them well, however. But Lyn, it's all so pointless, as to I'm not sure what these royals do other than command attention.

  8. I'm with you Amaya, but kings do have three significant functions. In the Jewish history/scripture book of Samuel, we're told that Israel wanted a king like all the other countries. A prophet responded that God had told him kings will 1) take your sons for war, 2) take your daughters into their house, and 3) take a big percentage of your wealth. If you're thinking that guys like Clinton, Bush, & Obama do a fair share of that as well, you're not alone. Many framers of the U.S. constitution thought having a president would be almost as bad as a king, but some didn't think they'd get any respect from other nations if they didn't have a head-of-state dude, so they went with a temporarily-elected king lite. Those of you readers forming nations today are encouraged to continue innovating and improving.

  9. Hi Lyn, I don't think what you posted is right. I think the problem is that in the US, some British history is taught because you pretty much have to as part of the early US history. But after that it stops, and Americans are left with a concept of monarchy that we already changed a long time ago. The British state is a democratic, and it already owns most of the monarchy's wealth, only a small amount is left as personally owned by the monarch. See this:

    So at least we own our monarchy. France got rid of their monarchy in an attempt to create equality but ended up with one of the most stratified society in Europe. In the UK, no matter how much wealth and power a private individual has, they'll never be above the royals. That's a pretty leveling idea when you think about it. And despite their many flaws it's good to know they're mainly decent people who have to stay neutral politically. Unlike the US where the corporate royalty of CEOs and rich folk are the top of the upperclass and you have nothing above that. If you're not worried about American corporate royalty perhaps you should be. I just saw this video linked from Huffington Post which kind of illustrates it as far as I'm concerned:

    It's not a surprise that of the remaining constitutional monarchies in advanced societies (UK, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan etc.) the societies are actually quite egalitarian.

  10. Dear Am,
    My position is not so far away from your last comment. I object to monarchy in principle. The tame way it is now practiced in the U.K. or Japan is certainly an improvement. In contrast, I think a democratic republic is laudable in principle, while in practice it often results in uninformed masses voting for cheesy hucksters or being manipulated by those who control all the resources, as you have suggested happens in American society. I celebrate the ideals of the French and American revolutions, not necessarily their current application. I'm too much of a romanticist to celebrate the weddings of kings or Kennedys. Whether they stake their claim to fame on a royal crown or smuggling Crown Royal, I believe we can and should do better. In my book Sacred Ground & Holy Water, I address several unethical American institutions with equally vigorous rants.

  11. I need to to thank you for this excellent read!!
    I certainly loved every bit of it. I have got you bookmarked to look at new stuff you post…

    Here is my page ::