Occupy Wall Street protesters pictured before they forgot about it a few months later. Fight the power, "Musician Teacher." |
Somehow, in spite of all of this, Canada's obsession with Britain's royal family still remains strong. The latest story is about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry moving out of the palace. The palace, a thing that exists in this day and age. The idea of royalty runs contrary to everything modern western thought claims to believe in, yet here we are, collectively revelling in baby photos. Maybe it's the Disney movies that allow the real-life princes and princesses to get a free pass. The public view may only change if in Frozen 2 there's a subplot about ludicrous amounts of public funds being dedicated to the princess' ice palace (assuming those are things that exist in Frozen). The prevailing argument to keep the royals in existence (and thus on the taxpayer dollar) is they bring in a wealth of tourist cash, but that irks me just the same. Why would we want to pay more money to see rich people whose claim to fame is that they were born to other rich people? Unless of course they have a goofy snowman companion, but again, I think that's just Frozen.
Reading on pre-World War era royalty reminded me of a peculiar feeling from about a year ago. While writing a series on Canada in the Great War, there was one thing that bothered me; the first war, especially with the quick onset of the blockbuster sequel that followed, made it feel... futile. I couldn't quite shake it. The war was based on fighting on the whims of royalty and having countless scores of the lower class die for it like pieces on a game board. But to what end? World War II was far more of a "good vs. evil" vibe, and it's easier to feel more at ease with the sacrifices; they fought and died for the triumph over Nazis. You can't ask for much more. However, I just couldn't pinpoint what benefit came from the first.
Kaiser Wilhelm's incredible moustache: Maybe German royalty is born with it. Maybe it's Maybelline. |
Now, after reading into it a little more, I see the purpose of World War I much more clearly. It ended the total rule of royalty. Going into the war, Germany was led by a kaiser; Russia, a czar; Austria-Hungary, an emperor; and England a king. Of those, the only one left standing at the head of power was England's king, and his power had diminished so greatly that the only reason he stuck around was due to the fact that he didn't try to hold on to leadership that strongly. Simply put, it wasn't worth toppling him. Had he tried to stay and make all the decisions, he would have been ousted too.
The fact that the youngest member of the royal family (pictured: left) is admittedly a pretty adorable baby doesn't change my mind that his title should be abolished. |
This series will be about how the road to war was paved by three rulers; all cousins, all powerful, and all spoiled rich-kid types born with a diamond-encrusted silver spoon. George, the reluctant king of England, more suited to relaxing in villas than ruling a country; Wilhelm, the kaiser of Germany, whose petulance and ego brought the world to war; and Nicholas, a man so arrogant he thought he could run a country as large and divided as Russia by himself, oblivious to the hurricane swirling around him. Read the rest and you'll see why I wish that the latest royal family child, "His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge" (a boy who has not yet reached his first birthday) would just be called "Lou".
No comments:
Post a Comment