Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, July 14, 2017

It is Good to be the King

Americans have a deep affection and appreciation for the British royal family. Yet, I do not see a world in which the American public would adopt Uncle Sam or any being as a monarch. While Uncle Sam is a pillar in the lore of American history, Americans are notorious for believing in the idea of amelioration. It is an idea that constantly drives us to reinvent ourselves to better ourselves.

Therefore, the idea of Uncle Sam as the American monarch would not work. Now, do not get me wrong, the idea of someone dressed up like Uncle Sam does sound very interesting. The desire of the American spirit to separate themselves from their English counterparts would outweigh the thrills of Uncle Sam, the Duke of Hazard County, the Earl of Englewood or any other members of the Koch Brothers Court, sponsored by Exxon. For the American spirit revolves around change, peaceful or violent. Change is tied to our very existence in America, just like our weather is tied to our adventurous spirit.

Unfortunately, a monarch in America does not stand for change. A monarch stands for traditions of days long past. The idea that our president would be beholden to one individual and his stuck up family scares me. I mean can you imagine President Donald Trump having to bow before Queen Kathleen Kennedy? Would he disrespect her majesty by commenting on her physical features or just ramble on about how hard the job is for him? Either way, the idea of Uncle Sam as a monarch is truly unAmerican.


  1. Anonymous12:29 AM CDT

    I actually met the Queen of England when I was in school in Wales, UK. I bought and presented her with a present and bowed at her feet. Although I am a Trump supporter I can't say that I would gravel at his feet the way I did her. Some people just carry their legacy and their whole presence dominates everyone and the in the Queens case her presence dominates the whole world.

    1. It isn't personal charisma that has people groveling before monarchs, it's institutional tradition (or inertia?) and the perception of legitimacy on the part of kings and queens to represent the larger interests of the state. What Brandon's Mel Brooks clip illustrates is a de-legitimized king, one who thinks that if you're the "star" you can just grab them by the whatever.

      I have to say, anyone who would grovel before Drumpf is tragically lacking in the experience and comprehension of legitimate leadership, and of simple human decency.

    2. "can you imagine President Donald Drumpf having to bow before Queen Kathleen Kennedy?" - I can, and - to quote Don Jr. - I love it!

      Stephen Fry wasn't serious, of course, but there is a seriuos point in his suggestion: in times when electoral politics brings scoundrels to power, it's very useful and healthy to have someone representing the state's BEST longterm interests be in a position to confront and hold the scoundrel accountable, on a regular basis. It's not about"one individual and his stuck up family" (but do you mean the royal family or POTUS?), it's about one nation insisting through its mediating sovereign representative that politicians serve the people. In the current climate, NOT having that kind of accountability is to me a lot scarier than the pomp and circumstance surrounding a royal audience with the president.

    3. I think you are right Dr. Phil. Reverence for monarchs in today’s world is “institutional tradition” as a residual of bygone days. I was recently in New Zealand and the folks there have a great respect for the queen. She is the titular head of state and at the same time, powerless. There seems to be some sort of satisfaction in having royalty at the head of your government, even if that royalty has no practical power. People simply love the idea of royalty. If it were not specifically forbidden by our Constitution, we too, would probably have a king and queen.

      It is also a shame that the dignity of the presidency in the U.S. has degenerated to the place it is today. President number 42 embarrassed the country by having oral sex in the oval with an intern less than half his age while his wife and daughter were also in the building. President 45 made disparaging remarks about his supposed grabbing of private female parts because of his celebrity status (before he was president). Both of these are disgusting, are they not? Neither is surprising. Have the kings of history behaved any better?

      I do think, however that we can all agree that the history of monarchy is one of tyrannical power rather than one of benevolent governance.

      Many people love the idea of a king and queen as heads of state. However, as James inferred, our passions are often subjective, and not based in reality or fact.