No, as Robert Smith quips, not the so-called Republican party in the United States. Real Republicans. The consensus seems to be that Queen Elizabeth served the role admirably and well. For most people, she was just the figurehead of an institution. Sure, the institution carries a lot of baggage, but she was mostly not complicit in creating more. She was pretty much a likeable mum.
But as with benevolent dictators, we don’t know where the benevolence ends. Why not just stop here and not keep rolling the dice? I don’t suppose that Charles has the same brand cache. In any case, family lineage is no system of succession—in State or Commerce, I might add. The world needs fewer dynasties, not more.
In this first piece, world-class writer, Philip Hall, shares his perspective on the dissolution of the Monarchy.
Bring the powerful to heel, don’t glorify monarchs and privilege
by Philip Hall (ARS Notoria)
The idea that Charles III is divinely appointed to rule over us is ridiculously far-fetched. Yet, ultimately, it is the metaphysical idea of the divine right of kings that gives King Charles III his political legitimacy… (click image to continue)
In the next video, Alex O’Connor (AKA Cosmic Skeptic), has some thoughts of his own on the monarchy.
On a lighter note, the Cure’s Robert Smith tells us how he really feels in this compellation compiled in 2021.
If you have any comments, I’d love to hear them—rather, read them, but you know what I mean because you’re clever like that.
Philosophics 