Notwithstanding the trauma of my detached retinas from seeing Kate's very shiny hair without the protection of nuclear test googles circa 1943, I remain determined to finish wiping up the coffee which has unceremoniously spewed from my nose as I listened to your unparalleled talent, Laura. As a Yank of Danish and Irish heritage (and a mix of other bright white bits), I give just less than two shits about the royals, so can unemotionally and categorically scratch my not-as-shiny-haired head at all the fuss about a coronation. It is technically a bit of identifiable history happening in the moment, so likely that is of more interest than anything else. Not that I watched any of it, but it is mildly interesting for that reason alone.
Having tossed off a different third-suffixed monarch a couple centuries ago, we have nevertheless retained our own capitalist monarchy, which has run more than amok since the early 1980s with the institutionalization of voodoo as an economic policy. Things have, in fact, trickled down, but as the saying goes, shit runs downhill.
Loved Mabel's contributions to the intro; keep up the great work, both of you! (The other) Kate
As a Canadian, we get our fill of the monarchy and their absurd role of assent but somehow we enthusiastically are adding King Chuck to our currency. My objection is utilitarian - we don't need them, their authorization, or their credibility but acknowledge that as a people we suffer from a powerful inferiority complex that they assuage.
You did poke me with the equality argument. However laudable, the equality story is a naive myth and gradients of inequality seem nonsensical. I recognize the obscenity of flagrant opulence but I only need to see the pink stucco McMansions that circle my city to realize that 4000 sq ft is only a distinction compared to 10000 sq ft and from there, it doesn't seem to make a difference. If I was in the 'eat and heat' group, it doesn't much matter whether Chuck and Cam have 5 castles or 100, none of that is going to trickle down, and maybe it shouldn't.
Your essay made me think about the British aristocracy and the American fascination with it. I'd rather watch Downton Abbey than read about the royals, because part of the appeal is a suspension of thinking about what the monarchy and the aristocracy represent.
There is an attraction to a fictionalized world that retained certain fixed qualities of status and where we, the ordinary, can dream about being the Lord and Lady rather than the footman or the scullery maid. The monarchy has become way too "real" to provide that escapism.
Notwithstanding the trauma of my detached retinas from seeing Kate's very shiny hair without the protection of nuclear test googles circa 1943, I remain determined to finish wiping up the coffee which has unceremoniously spewed from my nose as I listened to your unparalleled talent, Laura. As a Yank of Danish and Irish heritage (and a mix of other bright white bits), I give just less than two shits about the royals, so can unemotionally and categorically scratch my not-as-shiny-haired head at all the fuss about a coronation. It is technically a bit of identifiable history happening in the moment, so likely that is of more interest than anything else. Not that I watched any of it, but it is mildly interesting for that reason alone.
Having tossed off a different third-suffixed monarch a couple centuries ago, we have nevertheless retained our own capitalist monarchy, which has run more than amok since the early 1980s with the institutionalization of voodoo as an economic policy. Things have, in fact, trickled down, but as the saying goes, shit runs downhill.
Loved Mabel's contributions to the intro; keep up the great work, both of you! (The other) Kate
As a Canadian, we get our fill of the monarchy and their absurd role of assent but somehow we enthusiastically are adding King Chuck to our currency. My objection is utilitarian - we don't need them, their authorization, or their credibility but acknowledge that as a people we suffer from a powerful inferiority complex that they assuage.
You did poke me with the equality argument. However laudable, the equality story is a naive myth and gradients of inequality seem nonsensical. I recognize the obscenity of flagrant opulence but I only need to see the pink stucco McMansions that circle my city to realize that 4000 sq ft is only a distinction compared to 10000 sq ft and from there, it doesn't seem to make a difference. If I was in the 'eat and heat' group, it doesn't much matter whether Chuck and Cam have 5 castles or 100, none of that is going to trickle down, and maybe it shouldn't.
Laura,
Your essay made me think about the British aristocracy and the American fascination with it. I'd rather watch Downton Abbey than read about the royals, because part of the appeal is a suspension of thinking about what the monarchy and the aristocracy represent.
There is an attraction to a fictionalized world that retained certain fixed qualities of status and where we, the ordinary, can dream about being the Lord and Lady rather than the footman or the scullery maid. The monarchy has become way too "real" to provide that escapism.