Beguiled by royals
Americans are faux egalitarians
On a cold wintry night in January 1774, a mob of Bostonians stormed the house of John Malcom, dragged him onto King Street and tarred and feathered him. It was the ardent British Loyalist’s second time as a sticky bird. Only this time the patriots also paraded him through the streets to the Liberty Tree, strung a noose around his neck and threatened to cut off his ears if he didn’t renounce his role as a customs officer for the crown.
Although the revolution hadn’t begun, hostility toward the British royal family for its “taxation without representation” of the Colonies was near its peak and would continue for many years, surging again during the War of 1812 and the American Civil War, when Britain threatened to align with the Confederacy. Our Anglo animosity abated only at the end of the 19th century, when American and British interests aligned during what historians call the Great Rapprochement.
Flash forward to today as the American press seems absolutely enamored with the royal family and the recent announcement that American actress Meghan Markle soon will marry into it. News outlets have referred to it as a “fairytale romance”— a prince marrying a “commoner.” ABC’s “20/20” praised Ms. Markle as a feminist role model in its “American Royal” profile, in which three middle schoolers at her alma mater gushed that Ms. Markle was “very pretty” and “inspiring” and that they were “following in her footsteps.”
Yet Ms. Markle is now giving up her acting career, her home in Los Angeles, her voice on social media, her privacy and, in all likelihood, her American citizenship, for a man.
Meanwhile, she is being even more objectified than she already was for her appearance. Newscasters refer to the “Markle Sparkle” regarding her influence on fashion trends. And if history’s any guide, like Kate Middleton, she soon will be feted as a babymaker for producing a royal heir. At a time when the women’s #Me Too movement is raging, celebrating such anachronistic fairy tales is truly disheartening. Should the goal of young girls in 2017 be tomarry Prince Charming?
Regarding Ms. Markle’s prince, what has Harry really done that’s so spectacular, besides emerging from the royal womb? Inherited titles are antithetical to America’s founding ideology.Our Declaration of Independence states that “all men [or people, by proxy, in a less sexist 2017] are created equal” and our government derives its power from “the consent of the governed.” This belies inherited titles, as someone born royal is not considered equal to other citizens and governs (or acts as sovereign) without consent.
One of the privileges Britain’s royals enjoy that ordinary citizens don’t is exemption from the nation’s inheritance tax. In the United Kingdom, that tax is 40 percent on estates valued over 325,000 British pounds, which is about $426,000 at today’s exchange rate. That exemption has allowed the House of Windsor to maintain its wealth through the generations. Queen Elizabeth II’s net worth is estimated to be $550 million.
Contrary to popular belief, the royals aren’t just figureheads; they possess real political power. The “Royal Prerogative” allows the monarch to select a prime minister in the event of a hung parliament, grant judicial pardons, recognize foreign states, annex territory and grant or withdraw British passports. All by birthright, not election.
Yet many Americans view the royal romance as harmless entertainment. Washington Post columnist Alyssa Rosenberg recently wrote: There are a lot of things the American Revolution won us and among the least consequential but most purely pleasurable is the right to enjoy the soap opera that is a royal wedding without having to pay a dime for it or to give a fig about the implications …. Though we’ve saddled ourselves with a first family prone to gilding everything in sight and lining their pockets, we’re not at immediate risk of a monarchical restoration.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider that our Republican-led Congress just sharply curtailed the estate tax, moving us toward a society much like the monarchal Britannia of yore where wealth and power are inherited in perpetuity.
Having fought a war against the old British aristocracy, Thomas Jefferson fretted about the potential for a new one here. In his 1821 autobiography, he recommended restricting inherited wealth to create a political “system by which every fibre would be eradicated of ancient or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican.”
Perhaps those first patriots who tarred and feathered Malcom recognized something we’ve long forgotten. To quote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, butwe can’t have both.”