Maude Nificentmany articles about [former prince] andrew are gossipy clickbait — but the question
“what is the whole point of monarchy?”
remains a valid one. a recent article on a socialist website cuts to the chase, and at the same time, provides some context for the not so salacious filler in the andrew stories, about him attempting to peddle influence the royals are traditionally not supposed to peddle as they are above that sort of thing. (let’s not kid ourselves andrew is the only one doing it)
—-
“The monarchy has long been cultivated as a pillar of the capitalist order. The overthrow and execution of Charles I in 1649 marked the birth of bourgeois rule out of feudalism. The Restoration in 1660 created a constitutional monarchy to safeguard that rule through a political compromise between the old feudal aristocracy and the new bourgeoisie, solidified by the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and the passing of the Bill of Rights the next year.
Over the centuries, the monarchy served the bourgeois state well. It offered a nominally unpolitical and unifying head of state, shrouded and sanctified by “history” and “tradition”, during the bloody growth of the British Empire. Later it provided a tool of global realpolitik in relations with US and other imperialisms, and newly independent Commonwealth states, as the Empire and Britain’s economic supremacy waned.
Particularly in the person of Elizabeth II, the monarchy gave bourgeois rule an appearance of stability and continuity. But the fall of British capitalism’s international position saw a reckless embrace of the naked speculation of financial parasitism. The royals themselves courted this layer.
Elizabeth responded with an attempt to cut the royal retinue down to a more manageable size, but this only made those lower down the pecking order more rapacious and reckless in seeking independent revenue streams from a global financial oligarchy who far outstrip them in wealth. …”
—-
Writing Slowly