January 29, 2013
Time for some royal prerogative – let’s give Kate’s child a choice
Huw Price in The Conversation:
My main puzzle – about everyone who expresses views on these matters, from the most loyal monarchists all the way through to staunch republicans – is their apparent indifference to Baby Cambridge’s own views about whether she or he wants to be Queen or King of England (let alone Australia).
“That’s ridiculous,” you say, “The baby is not even born yet – how could we ask her?” Of course not. She (let’s call her she) won’t be in a position to decide for the best part of twenty years, at the very least – and perhaps not for years after that, since many young people don’t make up their minds how they wish to spend their lives until well into their twenties or thirties.
But that’s the point. Baby Cambridge’s peers – your children and grandchildren – will all have the opportunity that we now take for granted, to decide for themselves what to make of their lives. On what possible grounds are we, or the state, or even her parents, entitled to deny the same opportunity to her?
That’s the real question we should all be asking, in my view, and it is not about discrimination in favour of royal children. It is about discrimination against them – about the denial in their case of basic freedoms we take for granted for everyone else.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 10:08 AM | Permalink






















Comments
I wouldn't worry about this problem. Royals who don't want the job they are groomed for have been known to step down in favor of one who is more dutiful. As they said of the Duke of Windsor, if he was capable of bolting like that, then thank God he didn't stick it out. I thought this essay was bound to end with turning consideration to children who were pre-condemned to lead thwarted lives because of poverty, neglect, hunger, and lack of access to education. But no. It's really about more choices for a baby royal.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 29, 2013 1:05:28 PM
That baby already has more choice than the child who can't afford asthma medication, who is sent to an underfunded school, and who grows up unable to pay college tuition.
Posted by: Shelley | Jan 29, 2013 1:12:10 PM
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Denis Diderot
Posted by: BobbyV | Jan 29, 2013 5:53:29 PM
Not to be too class warfare-ish but this reminds of Mrs. Romney sobbing quietly by herself and avoiding her servants after losing the election. Oh, and 'taking more time to ride her horses'.
Boo-f*****g-hoo. I'm pretty sure Elatia has it spot on. Connect it to unborn children that don't actually have options in the world.
Of course this could just be my American 'blinders'; we really don't understand the whole royalty thing over here, and haven't since, oh, about 1776 (sorry for the cliche). This piece may very well seem more interesting to someone with a different background than I.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 30, 2013 2:32:18 AM
I think many US citizens display more of a fawning interest in the GB royal family than many of us Brits do, actually. But anyway, the premise of the article is comprehensively flawed; nobody has to be monarch if they don't want to. Many of us are hoping Charlie will decide it's not worth it, and leave William to found a new, more slimmed-down Scandimonarchy for the mid-21st century - all fun and tourism, no dodgy constitutional prerogatives.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 30, 2013 5:05:44 AM
The americans interested in that are just warped by celebrity culture in general. It is, to me at least, a depressingly stupid way to spend your time and emotion. I doubt anyone that watched the wedding coverage over here actually knows anything about the royal succession. It's just another Justin Beiber.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 30, 2013 2:25:46 PM
Post a comment