Let's ignore the fact that the UK monarchy is less popular now than it has probably ever been.
Let's ignore the fact that it is tainted by the Epstein files.
Let's ignore the fact that Donald Trump is less popular than he has ever been.
Let's ignore the fact that he is also tainted by the Epstein files.
Let's ask instead what this royal visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla (two words that I still cannot associate with each other without difficulty) to visit Trump in the USA is all about.
There is only one answer. We could change the characters, we could change the time, but the answer is always the same. Such occasions are always about those who think they have power seeking to secure privilege. This is the game that they know. This is the game that they play.
And the message from this visit is that there is still an active power play going on between the UK and the USA.
What does that mean?
It means that we are willing to turn a blind eye to Donald Trump's abuse of human rights. We are willing to turn a blind eye to his racism, his misogyny and his links to paedophilia, when the last at least would have accounted for him here, as it has for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
We are willing, as well, to turn a blind eye to the fact that Trump is now waging an illegal war against Iran, in which war crimes have taken place, and he has threatened much worse.
We are willing to ignore the fact that the world is in economic crisis because of the vanity of this man and his support for an Israeli government that has undertaken genocide.
We are willing, as well, to pretend that there is still an equal relationship of power between the US and us and that something that we, on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, would like to call the “special relationship” still exists.
It does not, or if it does, there is something deeply toxic about this relationship.
It is one based on tolerance of abuse.
It is one that does not involve judgement.
It does not consider consequences.
It is one that does not consider the impact of power on real people, real lives and their loss.
It is one that plays for the moment, the press release and the image, but which ignores all issues of substance.
It is, as a result, hollow.
It is devoid of meaning.
And, despite all that, it tells us a great deal.
It tells us that we have desperate and despicable people in power.
It tells us that we need to be rid of these people, their actions, their beliefs, their motivations and their power systems.
It tells us that we need real democracy and not the sham two-party systems that dominate supposed political choice in both the UK and the USA, although the appearance of that finally appears to be collapsing in this country, without appropriate reform to electoral systems to permit the new political reality to be reflected in the way in which power will be exercised.
It tells us that we need to live in an era where defence is about resilience, the preservation of culture, respect for difference, a desire for reconciliation, the avoidance of conflict and the quest for peace.
It tells us, above all else, that those with power must know what it means to be last if they are to be first. That contempt for, and indifference towards, those whom they perceive to be powerless must come to an end.
The pursuit of power must cease to be an end in its own right, as neoliberal culture has made it. The governments of the UK and the USA are products of that culture. The abuse that they create, tolerate, perpetrate and pretend exists as a consequence of that ideology.
And this visit reminds us of one thing. It supposedly celebrates US independence, but that is merely symbolic. What US independence proved was that an idea could topple power.
That is the most notable issue arising from this week's visit. Those people currently possessed of power as a consequence of the promotion of a cult that worships that false god as a virtue in its own right can be toppled. They can be toppled by the idea that politics should be for people, that we should care, that we should love each other as ourselves, and that there is the possibility of an economics of hope.
We are a long way from that position as yet, but there is one other thing to note about this state visit. That is that both the host and the guest are ageing men showing signs of their infirmity, and that their grip on power will inevitably slip sometime soon. The hope has to be that those who come after them, and maybe even the systems that choose them, have and are based upon other ideas, motivations and concerns that might deliver something altogether better.
The dinosaurs might be out this week, but their era has passed.
Something new is possible.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Not unsurprisingly I suppose the death of Queen Elizabeth II has left the Monarchy horribly exposed.
For what its worth my view is that given the impact being a member of the Royal Family has on its members that alone is sufficient reason for ending the institution and replacing it with an elected Head of State.
I fear however that it will end not as a result of a considered decision with an agreed replacement but in a crisis with an outcome that is not beneficial to most of us.
I suspect that had King Charles III been born as plain old Charles Windsor, free to marry the undoubtedly fun-to-be-with Camilla Shand back around 1970 he would be a much happier man than he is today, despite all his wealth and privileges. But remember that Donald Trump is an elected head of state, as is Vladimir Putin. What makes you think that replacing an hereditary monarchy with an elected head of state will solve anything for the UK? I’d like to suggest a 3rd alternative that has real potential but am sadly at a loss.
Richard’s final sentence is “Something new is possible.” I’m delighted to hear that, but as the old joke has it… “If I were you, I wouldn’t start from here”. How do you start from here and end up at something new without a lot of pain and possible bloodshed in between?
As you may imagine, my mood this evening (Tasmania time) is somewhat pessimistic.
Hereditary monarchy is all about the symbolism of oppressive economic power. That is why it has to go.
@ Kit W-N,
Your examples don’t make any sense. Why would we replace a non executive head of state, with an executive president? We don’t need a head of state to direct government, just someone to sign acts into law, oversee changes of administration, and do the meet and greet.
Also, why alight on only two executive models, both shown to be deeply flawed; not least by their respective incumbent heads of state?
There are dozens of democratic constitutional models, many with heads of state in little more than ceremonial roles, that could be examined.
We should adopt the Irish model
Sorry to be blunt, but all they have done is replace one grifter – Mandelson – with two of them. They hope that the patronage will rub off on Trump and that will make Starmer’s job easier, that we’ll be spared this and that.
Desperate? – yeah – I think so.
Last roll of the dice by the hollow man (Starmer-poodle). Wonder what Starmer-poodle hopes to gain?
Doubtless tRump and his acolytes are sniggering into their BigMacs. If rTrump is a clown what does that make Starmer and Mr King?
I don’t about you, Richard, nor about other readers of your Blog, but I’m fairly certain you and they will be sharing my exasperation at the frequent postings by the “experts” of the Royal family commentators that regale us with accounts of how William is toughening up “the Firm” in the wake of the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor fiasco, in order to secure “the Firm’s” future.
I really am totally uninterested in all of that, which very much approximates to Shakespeare’s “a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing”, and regard it as both delusional and an imposition on the UK population.
Delusional, because unless William succeeds to the throne very shortly, I’d guess his chances of becoming William V are not high, and might even mimic the experience of King Umberto of Italy, who lasted a month before the Italian electorate voted his kingship out of existence (and his son’s chances of becoming King are zero, IMO),
An imposition, because we, the people of rhe UK, have other more important and real issues to grapple with, all covered admirably here on this blog and elsewhere.
Frankly, I wish they’d just shut up shop and retire, being a vaudeville act close to being booed off stage.
Much to agree with
“Queen Camilla (two words that I still cannot associate with each other without difficulty) ” …..just insert ‘Consort’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60274816
The monarchy is propped up by a system of unmerited peerages, lords, ladies, knights, vicounts etc, that are unelected, unhinged, unwanted and completely out of touch with reality, yet given such privileges beyond most of our abilities. I grant there are some that do some good work, but it’s almost as if we have to be so thankful that they grace us with their gloved hands. The family tree is seen as an excuse for morality and a ticket into the privilege of wealth and power, that they have not earned through either hard work or deserved merit. Why should we take note if what these people say or do more than anyone else?? Rant over, thanks for the space, keep up the good work
We (UK) are pathetically exposed by this so-called state visit. And what a state ‘we’ are in. When ‘we’ have to rely on one old individual whom the majority (me included) now see as an anachronism, to schmooze over another old individual, who is far from anachronistic, and is someone who will stop at nothing to get his own way, then the outcome will be ……. Please complete the sentence depending on whether you are a royalist or not. Thanks for your consideration.