The monarchy is an absurd anachronism…
This is nothing more than a statement of opinion. The monarchy is, as I say, “an empty shell”, as it has no real power. That, however, does not mean that it serves no
purpose; it serves a a powerful symbol of the
idea of Britain. It also serves a purpose as a buffer of sorts in British society. How so?
I will have to digress a bit now. Without the monarchy, all you have in Britain is, essentially, the U.S., because the U.K., along with the rest of the western world, has been profoundly influenced by the thinking of the so-called “Enlightenment” of which the U.S. is the exemplar. The thing about America, and you can take it from me as an American man (a combat veteran who was once very patriotic) who lives this **** daily, is that the soul-crushing (and, I don’t use that term lightly or offhandedly) nature of the modern state and its control over society has become increasingly apparent. The ideals and values of a relentlessly “progressive” ideology are crammed down our throats continually, and all the values which I took for granted during my upbringing are being declaimed as being “undemocratic”. Traditional values such as patriarchy, ethnicity, community, and the concept of social dominance have been subjugated to certain values, which are nothing but unnatural ideals, which have arisen from the Enlightenment and are expressed in the code of law. Compounding this, the informational capacities afforded by the rise of the internet have aided and facilitated this effort. (Believe you me, these statements are being noted and recorded in a data base. The only reason I don’t give a **** is that I don’t use my real name on these fora, and don’t post from a device which can be tied to me; I should not appear on a “watch list” of any description.) Believe me, you don’t want Britain to make the full leap into this state of affairs… or, maybe you do; people differ. In the ongoing battle between the traditional values which originated with the tribe, and the values of the Enlightenment, I am a traditionalist. I personally understand the monarchy, even though it has accede to becoming a part of the bureaucratic state, and the Lords to represent the only buffer which exists in Britain between the common man and the governmental bureaucracy which would (and largely does) dictate what values he may act upon. Digression ended.
…and the epitome of undeserved power and privilege.
Undeserved? Well, William of Normandy, the founder of the current monarchy seems to have deserved it, as he gained it by mannish conquest. Whether or not his progeny deserve similarly by inheritance is a question of political philosophy which would take us down a rabbit hole, so let’s avoid that. For my part, I am a tribal man, and I love my tribal chiefs.
Your second sentence appears to be a baseless assumption.
I admit to a bit of presumption there, but living in 21st century America, I know the “lefty-libby” type and its shared characteristics.
No idea where you're coming from.
As I say, from a traditionalist perspective which looks somewhat askance at the modern nation state, not understanding it to reflect my personal values.
