Tuesday, May 9, 2023

Leave the guy alone

The coronation of Queen Elizabeth's first-born and successor is top of the news this week. I fully intended to take a back seat on the whole affair, hide behind my American identity and not comment on the folderol. Not my king, not my country, none of my business. But after listening to so many critiques of the monarchy and the people who populate it, I thought I'd toss in my two cents. Ignore or dismiss at will.

I'm a great admirer of Alex O'Connor, the founder of the YouTube Channel "Cosmic Skeptic." He's one smart cookie. I love his atheism, admired his stand on not eating animal flesh and sympathized with him when the vegans of the world came down hard on him for telling the world his was an unhealthy diet and he was going back to meat and fish protein. Recently he spoke out against the coronation of Charles III. He makes a very strong argument that there is something quite off about addressing certain human beings as "Your Highness" and "Your Majesty." Poppycock, he says. Double poppycock when you try to get us to believe that this elevation has the imprimatur of a fictional character called God who lives in the sky and wants Britannia to rule the waves.

It's time, say Alex and countless others, including citizens (subjects?) of the United Kingdom itself, like John Cleese of Monty Python fame, who I just heard say he burst into guffaws when his wife insisted on watching the coronation before going to bed the other night. And kept laughing. "Once I realized it was a Python sketch I couldn't stop laughing."

The media uses the opportunity to do what the media does, and that includes yucking it up over every manner of human folly - the woman who used her life savings to fly in from Australia (he's Australia and Canada's king too, remember) and add to her collection of tens of thousands of royal memorabilia; the run-down of all the jewels on all the gowns of all the women in the royal party and who possessed them previously, the speculation over where ex-prince Harry (we'll argue that another time) was going to be seated and whether it was now Queen Camilla or next-in-line William's wife, Kate, who was so nasty to Harry's American mixed-race wife - and (whisper, whisper - which member of the family said something racist?) that she couldn't make it to the coronation. You have to admit there's a whole bunch of intensely rich and flingable gossip material available out there.

I had a number of conversations with a Danish friend on the relative merits of using human beings as symbols of a nation. They still do it in very enlightened countries.  Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands - just to name a handful of countries close to us culturally - all have kings and royal families who are heads of state. My Danish friend and I were in agreement that it is arguably a better system than the one we have, where we slap the role of head of state and head of government onto the same individual. A super dumb idea, methinks, since you want somebody admirable and without any serious character flaws to represent the state, and the head of government you get is a politician, and politicians rarely if ever live up to such expectations.  I think the Germans did it right. They have a president of more or less sterling character to cut ribbons and remind the populace that the whole world is watching and they need to be their best selves. And a chancellor who can twist arms and bargain with the devil when that kind of thing is called for, as head of government.

It was in Japan that I first began to see royals as human beings, and come to feel sorry for them.  I remember the images of Hirohito surrendering to MacArthur on the Battleship Missouri and that photo of him standing next to MacArthur, on his left (the man always stands to the woman's right in traditional photos) looking like a terrified little boy, far shorter than the victorious general. On the official level, this is the job of royalty representing their nations. The way to humiliate the nation is to humiliate the human being standing in for the nation. Fine. A job's a job.

But what about the fact that when Hirohito's successor Akihito married Princess Michiko, it became an open secret that she was bullied so severely by Hirohito's wife, her mother-in-law, that she had a nervous breakdown. Word is she couldn't withstand the criticism of her failure to observe the thousand and one rules of behavior expected of her. At some point she actually stopped speaking for months.

Not to be outdone by Michiko, her son Naruhito, Akihito's successor married Masako, a woman who had to give up her career as diplomat to do official duties as empress. Masako too had a nervous breakdown, again allegedly resulting from bullying from within the family. Her illness was labeled an "adjustment disorder" - and, I ask you, is there a more nasty term that you can think of for being hounded on your inability to produce a male heir? Can't make a male baby? You're not adjusting!

This cruelty in bullying people born into or otherwise forced into an impossibly large number of rules not of their choosing doesn't stop here. Akihito's brother's kid, a girl named Mako, fell in love with a commoner while at college and had to give up her royal status to marry him. The fact that he became a successful lawyer and the two apparently are happily married did not prevent her from being diagnosed with C-PTSD. Post-traumatic-stress-disorder isn't bad enough, she has to get complex PTSD?

You could say it's not the fault of the system of using a monarchy as head of state but of individual members of that monarchy who eat each other alive. (You could also say that if you're going to have a daughter in the Japanese royal family, don't give her a name that begins with an M.) But the point is that it's not just that these people do not have the benefit of individual rights, but they have no way to escape the kind of bullying that drives people crazy, nowhere to go. There's something profoundly wrong about that.

And that's where I find myself parting ways a tad with my much admired YouTube hero, Alex O'Connor and the brilliant comedian, John Cleese. I agree with them that we should dismantle the monarchy because it's a huge drain on the national treasury. We can certainly find much better places to spend taxpayer money - and because there's something off-putting about referring to human beings as "highness" and "majesty." But even more so, just as I don't believe we have the right to take human life except in self-defence, and I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment, I don't believe we should force anybody's children, royal or otherwise, to live lives not of their own choosing.

Don't tell me that they should be admired or envied because of their absurd wealth. Anybody with a soul figures out sooner or later that while it's far better to be rich than to be poor, as I get closer to the end, I count my blessings in loved ones, not in shekels. And a year in Saudi Arabia taught me how money can get in the way of progressive thinking and cut the legs off of ambition. Rich people are not immune to nervous breakdowns.

I know this is not a burning issue. There are far far worse things than being rich. Believing you have to live with an abusive spouse for the sake of the children is worse. Having to sleep in a bathtub so that gunshots coming through the windows and walls don't hit you at night is worse. I'm not going to lose any sleep over all the trash I've heard people throw his way ever since he first came to my attention when we read about his birth in The Weekly Reader in the Fourth Grade, in 1948.

But I never faulted him for not falling in love with the people's princess but for an older less glamorous lady, instead. I can relate at least to that.  Do we really believe we have the right to dictate other people's love lives?

Parade around with "Not my king" signs if you wish - that attacks the monarchy. But ease up on the individual.  Let him settle in. He has agreed to put on a dinner jacket when called for and to congratulate fellow royals when they marry and mourn them when they die. Cut no end of ribbon. Show some gratitude that the job of human figurehead is being more than adequately performed. Stop sneering at him when he loses his temper over a fountain pen that doesn't work properly.

Be glad Charles III is likely not to follow the paths of his previous namesakes.  Charles I had his head cut off. Charles II had at least 12 illegitimate children and no legitimate ones, forcing his brother James to take on the crown. Charles III is facing the possibility he will go down in history as the king who presided over the breakup of the United Kingdom. That's enough of a burden for any man or woman.

Stop trashing the guy. Show a little sympathy.

Long live the King.





No comments: