Could someone explain to me why one of the top stories in my google news view is that Ralph Klein almost — almost — poked the Queen in the head with an umbrella? Who cares? Ralph was probably drunk, fer chrissakes, and ten bucks says he’ll try to blame it on Paul Martin anyway, so why is this such a great honking affair? When will people realize that the Queen is just some self-important old woman of no consequence whatsoever, a truly boring holdover from an archaic tradition, and that a poke in the hat with an umbrella is of no more importance than what I had for breakfast this morning.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Skirl | Dan Dickinson 
Although Ralph was almost certainly drunk, I disagree that it’s not newsworthy. Whether or not you think that the monarchy is relevant today, you can’t argue that she is a person in an important role. That role has been there for over a thousand years, and was the supreme executive power for roughly the first 700 of those.
Today, the monarch is the constitutional head of state, and still appoints Prime Ministers and approves legislation, albeit as a figurehead. She’s the head of the armed forces and the Church of England. These latter two organisations, especially, are ones that need symbolic figureheads. To a degree, she plays the same part, fostering national unity, to the whole United Kingdom. If you’d been here for the Golden Jubilee celebrations a couple of years ago, you’d agree.
There are plenty of countries in the world that still have monarchs, many – Norway, Netherlands, Spain – where they’re held in very high regard by the people.
I think that ritual, symbolism, and tradition are important things to a nation with a history. I think that dismissing her as unimportant is to blindly carry the American-lit torch of rugged independence.
Oooh, now I’m in for it…I’ve accused him of being a Yank. 🙂
I must be missing the point of your argument; it seems to be saying the monarchy’s important because it’s always been important. But I disagree specifically with your point that the armed forces and Church of England need symbolic figureheads. The military has several of them (various ministers & secretaries), while the Church of England…well, I believe they have a pretty well established figurehead already.
To the suggestion that the attitude is American in nature, I’d suggest you’re making two stereotypical errors yourself: 1) British indignation at having their traditions mocked, which usually results in an easy swipe at America and 2) lumping Canadian sentiment in with American. In fact, our “giggling at the monarchy” attitude is actually more in line with typical Canadian disdain for anything, or anyone, that strikes us as too vain or self-important…like America (see? we do it too!). And since she’s our monarch in name only, and we haven’t anywhere near the sense of ownership of her that the British people have, to (most of) us she’s just some elderly person who passes through every now and again with great pomp and ceremony. Like the Rolling Stones.
YOU’RE WRONG! YOU’RE A NAZI RACIST!
There, I figured that was the only way we were ending that one.
Godwin! I win. Or we both lose. Or something.