Day 1. Field Marshal Charlie Windsor tells non-white Britons that he thinks they do not belong here.
Day 2. Marshal of the Royal Air Force Charlie Windsor (same guy, different unearned title) is accepted as the head of the British “commonwealth” (another unearned title).
Very many of the people of the commonwealth counties are not white. Many of those people have made their homes in the UK.
The decision to make Charlie commonwealth leader kept the former colonial master at the top of the commonwealth. And it did so immediately after the new leader had shown that racist colonial attitudes are still alive at the top of the UK’s feudal hierarchy.
The decision may be particularly puzzling because most of the commonwealth nations are republics. But it seems that the commonwealth leaders do not recognise the republican associations of the term “commonwealth”. If they did it is hard to understand why they would ever have tolerated the British monarch at their head.
Embed from Getty Images
Field Marshal Charlie Windsor
No one would trust Field Marshal Charlie to lead them into battle. So why did the commonwealth choose him to lead them towards their ambitious objectives?
It may be that the leaders of the commonwealth nations believe that the the job is no more than a ceremonial one and that made them indifferent to who held it.
But still they might reasonable have been embarrassed by the prospect of being led by a fool like Charlie even if in only symbolic terms. And if they had any decency ought not to have chosen a racist.
Could it possibly be true that they made an appalling choice because Charlie’s mother asked them to? Queen Windsor had said that it was her “sincere wish” that her son replace her as commonwealth head, as he will as the UK’s head of state.
Ms Windsor recommended that her son, a man widely regarded as a fool, unreasonable in his behaviour, difficult to work with, and shown the day before to be an ignorant racist, should be this country’s nominee to head a multiracial and multinational organisation.
That way of filling vacancies is frowned upon by democrats and in all well-run organisations. It’s called nepotism.
If we believe that monarchists tell us, that Ms Windsor is a wise person who has helped guide the nation through difficult times in a dangerous world, we would be surprised by her recommendation to the commonwealth.
But there has never been much evidence that what the monarchists say is true. They assert it but do not show it. And any interventions she makes in affairs of state have been kept from the eyes of the people. So it has always seemed like a silly monarchist myth, used to defend the indefensible.
Her recommendation to the commonwealth is evidence that she does not indeed have the sagacity monarchists attribute to her. And that she is not in reality selfless in her devotion to the good of the country. The idea that she deserves a Noble Prize is offensive.
Perhaps like a good mother she ignored her son’s manifold weaknesses. His fitness for the job did not matter to her. All that mattered was that he was her son and that the privileges of her family should be upheld.
She put her family’s interests, her family’s egregiously unwarranted privileges, before the good name of her country, and before the best interests of the commonwealth.
This shows with great force why the hereditary principle is wrong. It rides roughshod over democratic principles and fitness for the job. They are overridden in order to perpetuate privilege.
This is what monarchy is about. It upholds unwarranted privilege and is indifferent to what’s best for the people and their country.
The British nation is badly served by this. So will be the British commonwealth.