is a monarchist take on the NPC Wojak meme that flared
up a little while ago. While I don't approve of the meme's
implied dehumanizing of republicans it is a good collection of
arguments that republicans use (often in some combination)
to attack monarchy. So this might be a good chance to address
these arguments in detail.
Paying for royal weddings
Right off the bat unless you are a British subject you don't pay
anything for them and get free access to coverage of the event.
If you are a British subject the government only covers the
security costs of the event which for the last royal wedding
were less than half the estimated boost to the economy
Monarchy is an out-dated, colonialist, relic
As someone who likes rational debate this kind of argument
annoys me. Take three buzzwords and try to imply that
monarchy is inferior because of it, eh? Out-dated things are
bad after all and the colonial period is marked by a country
being under another power and not yet mature. Of the three
only 'relic' has primarily positive associations in the modern-
But the reason something becomes out-dated because it no
longer works. And republicans can't show that for monarchy.
The reference to colonialism is interesting in the Canadian
context because so many institutions would fall under the
heading of being inherited from colonialist times. As an
example; "Parliament is an out-dated, colonialist, relic" is
just as valid of an argument. Which is to say, it isn't one.
Why are there still poor among us?
A question that has bedeviled humanity ever since we started
living in settled societies. And one neither monarchies nor
republics have been able to fully address. That said, Canada
rates as having a fairly low rate of poverty. A monarch, no
matter how good, can't be expected to fully solve this but they
can help by shedding light on the problem and organizations
working to combat it. Which the Royal Family does.
Lets elect politicians as our head of state
The most basic desire of republicans. And you'd think that
since they want this so badly they would be able to show what
concrete benefit it would bring. But I'm still waiting.
Everyone hates Prince Charles
Prince Charles gets far less credit than is his due in my
estimation. And I've never been quite able to pinpoint why.
There is of course the tragedy of Princess Diana which he has
had to wear. And he has often come across as awkward in his
interests and behavior. Then there is his reputation for
'meddling' in government business.
The Monarchist League of Canada noted a while back that the
heirs to the throne have sometimes tended to be unpopular
but then went on to be popular during their reign. And it
could be that Prince Charles doesn't fit the popular culture
view of what a prince should be (young, martial, and
handsome). But none of this means he wouldn't make a good
'Crown woman bad'
It is a great annoyance to republicans that the Queen has done
such a good job over the years. Such a good job that most
plots for removing the monarchy include the caveat 'after the
Queen's death'. It also means that republicans have tried to
magnify the few missteps the Queen has made. But at the end
of the day Her Majesty remains untouched by impropriety
and it must drive republicans mad.
Monarchies are by definition hierarchical. And responding to
claims that they are bad because of it can take several forms.
1. All countries have hierarchies, including republics, so it is
at least positive that monarchies are honest about this fact.
2. Monarchy is a small inequality that prevents greater acts of
3. Monarchy is not unequal at all. The monarch and people
have different roles to play but they are equally valuable.
4. Or maybe monarchy is more equatable than a republic. By
leaving the choice of head of state up to the one trait we all
share, being born, we affirm that anyone can be thrust into
an extraordinary position and be expected to do a good job.
Anyways, this has been my overly-detailed dissection of a
meme that likely took 5 minutes to make.
A Kisaragi Colour