A reason to be against the royal wedding

But the monarchy as a whole also promotes the norms of heterosexuality

Can\’t say that I find that all that convincing, to be honest.

Given that 97% of the country is heterosexual I think that counting it as \”the norm\” seems fair enough.

Further, given that we\’ve had more than one King into a bit of recreational same sex buggery I\’m not sure that even the first contention is true.

20 comments on “A reason to be against the royal wedding

  1. The monarchy as anti-gay? Without gay people the palace would be just about empty. The Queen Mother preferred an exclusively gay staff.

  2. Well, Charlie makes some interesting points, but they are all arguable. It’s a point of view, to be sure.

  3. Tim, I have to say I’m a bit surprised to read that from you: aren’t you normally quite proud of your ‘classical liberalism’? Anyway, three points. One: the fact that a certain percentage of the population is straight, or gay, or whatever, might define what’s broad brush normal (a description of how people are) but that’s not at all the same as coming up with a justification for a norm (an assertion of how people should be). Even if almost everyone in the country had blue eyes, that wouldn’t justify the promotion of blue-eyedness or blue-eyed people. You need other reasons. Two: that some minorities are small just reinforces my point about it being difficult for the royal family to fulfill a role as an exemplar family. A leading family won’t be a representative family: it’ll be too small. Three: they’d have to be out and proud for it to count.

    Ian B: if you were to overcome your nasty little tribal instincts for a moment, it might occur to you that Tony Blair could easily be taken for a right winger. Or a non-liberal, at any rate. In any case, I don’t claim that the political right and the religious make a perfect intersection, even though they do make for a mighty large intersection.

    Tim adds: Proud of? No, it’s a description, not a badge of honour.

    And the first and major meaning of “norm” is “normal, usual”. It’s only the secondary and subsidiary meaning which is as you describe it.

    And none of what you’ve subsequently said is an anti-Royal argument. Imagine we were a Republic, we elected someone to the position of HoS? We’d still be having all of exactly the same problems, wouldn’t we?

  4. Ian B: if you were to overcome your nasty little tribal instincts for a moment, it might occur to you that Tony Blair could easily be taken for a right winger. Or a non-liberal, at any rate. In any case, I don’t claim that the political right and the religious make a perfect intersection, even though they do make for a mighty large intersection.

    I don’t see how Blair, let alone Brown, could be conceived of as “right wing”. They led the most radical progressive government since the Attlee government. Furthermore, any decent reading of the history of Anglosphere Socialism reveals it to be strongly intertwined with religious movements; the Labour Party is sometimes called “The Methodist Party”. Kier Hardie’s inspiration was Christ and he was very clear about that. And on and on.

    What we see here is the hegemony of the American Narrative, in which the enemy of progressives is stereotypically “the religious right”. It does not apply in Europe. It’s an American thing; a direct consequence of their history in wich the religious left- the Yankees- fought the Southern States- who would become the heartland of “the religious right”. You can’t shoehorn our history, society and culture into that mould.

    “Nasty little tribal isntincts”? Pot, meet kettle.

  5. Not necessarily. Some republics make something of the notion of a ‘first family’, but usually it’s enough to have just the one person in the spotlight, and for a limited time, not a lifetime. Explicit values are to the fore (the president swears to uphold values x, y and z); universal character ideals such as integrity, even temperament, etc. are usually also considered important. Everything else is supposed to be irrelevant. If your president fails in the relevant things, he or she either disqualifies him or herself from office, or scuppers any chance of re-election. How does a royal disqualify him or herself? You might elect a duff president, but you can at least get rid of him (or her) again. For some reason, no one seems to mention this when it comes to discussions of the monarchy. And I should remind y’all that it’s Prince Charles who’s next in line, not William.

    In practice, there are likely no gay presidents. That I’ll give you.

  6. What we see here is the hegemony of the American Narrative, in which the enemy of progressives is stereotypically “the religious right”. It does not apply in Europe.

    That’s a nice story you have there. Unfortunately, it’s not supported by the data. While I’d agree that we don’t have an American-style ‘religious right’ in the UK, it’s nonetheless a fact that C of E churchgoers are nearly twice as likely to vote Tory than they are to vote Labour. I suspect you find similar correlations in German politics (CDU / CSU). I don’t know about France and the rest.

    As for Tony Blair, why on earth would you think him a product of Labour traditions?

  7. He’s a christian socialist. What on earth other “traditions” would make him more Labour? It’s a christian socialist party. You don’t think they’re marxists do you? Lolz.

    it’s nonetheless a fact that C of E churchgoers are nearly twice as likely to vote Tory than they are to vote Labour

    What about Methodists, Quakers, Church Of Scotland? Is the C of E the only christian church in your philosophy?

    This is a big thing really; most of the Left don’t openly realise it themselves, but they are basically a reflection of the American Left, and have been since the 60s; hence the adoption wholesale of an American ideological narrative; the racial struggle, Viet Nam, “diversity”, American Feminism, etc etc. Hence the constant attempts to describe Europe in American narrative terms.

    Take some issues. The Greens started off in Germany, but the model adopted is the American version descended from the California Nature Boys (you have to add Angl0-Calvinist self-denial into the mix to get mdoern Greenism). “Binge drinking” and “obesity” and anti-tobacco? American. War on drugs? American. Wars on Prostitution and Porn? American. Paedo/abuse hysteria? American. Sometimes it’s particularly egregious and the terminology doesn’t even get changed, hence the hatred of the “SUV”, a term that was never used here to describe 4x4s. Until the campaign was packaged up and shipped across the Atlantic for us dumb Euros to dutifully implement.

    And, particularly, the terror of the “religious right”. Resolutely, utterly, American.

    How does it feel to be fighting another of America’s proxy wars? Does it feel good?

    You really do need to read up on the history of the Progressive movement. It developed- in Britain, the US, and the lesser anglosphere- out of evangelical post-millennialism. The US has been dominating it- as the world super power- for nigh a century. We’re very much the tail of the dog, these days, I’m afraid.

  8. Charlie:
    If normal people ie the 93% of us who are of the norm, not homosexual & the sizeable majority of us who do not describe ourselves as ‘left wing’ ( not saying that the two groups are necessarily contiguous) chose to regard today as a celebration of our heterosexuality & non leftwingedness, would you have a problem with that? If so why?

  9. I fail to see how the monarchy promotes heterosexuality any more or less than the rest of the heterosexual population does by merely existing.

    Yes the pomp and ceremony is being reported and repeated all over the shop but it has nothing to do with promoting heterosexuality – it’s because it is a Royal wedding!

  10. Pingback: Royals | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

  11. bloke in spain: you’re saying that royal (that is, state) events ought to be taken as celebrations of heterosexuality and right of centre politics?

  12. What I want to know after reading the article in question is when did ‘gotten’ as a participle start creeping back into British English?

  13. I think that if you’re a consistent liberal you won’t endorse a non-neutral state celebration, even if you take yourself to be celebrating – in that event – something which is freely available to all. The wearing of colourful clothing, say. Or marching bands. Marriage, though, isn’t freely available to all, and the event we’re talking about is first and foremost a wedding in a church belonging to an organisation which (a) is headed by the grandparent of one of the people getting married and (b) opposes same sex marriage. Hence the event expresses a clear bias: either it shouldn’t be admitted as a state event, or it shouldn’t be supported.

  14. “Setting the issue of chauvinism of physical appearances aside for a moment…”

    Chauvinism means excessive patriotism. What’s that got to do with physical appearances….?

  15. Charlie-

    Marriage, though, isn’t freely available to all,

    It isn’t? I mean, okay, people who nobody else wants to marry can’t get married, but you wouldn’t argue that e.g. football isn’t available to people who nobody else chooses to play football with, would you? It’s freely available in the sense that nobody is barred from doing it by law. Isn’t it?

  16. “Marriage, though, isn’t freely available to all.”

    Well, yes it is, to those who read the agreed-upon definition in the English language. Almost all the definitions I have just looked up include some concept of it being between a man and a woman.

    If you want some other pairing, try inventing another word. If you want MARRIAGE, try doing it with someone of the opposite sex.

    Simples.

    Alan Douglas

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.