I think that Trump's, and by extension the American "Libertarian" Right's, fascination with monarchy is far darker than just kitschy nostalgia for vintage Brittan. Many figures funding the populist-right have sympathies with Curtis Yarvin and the Neo-Reactionary movement; Said movement's goal is to "undo the enlightenment era" by destroying American democracy and replacing it with corporate feudalism.
I’ve always considered “the special relationship” as something of a euphemism. It is essentially the changing times of colonial empires in the 20th century, the decline of British pomp coinciding with growing American imperialism. Best illustrated when the respective POTUS calls on Britain for its assistance and manpower in conflicts they themselves initiate - the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11, and likewise Iran today. The term reached something of a zenith in the 1980s when “special relationship” had people speculating whether there was a more intimate nature to the friendship between Reagan and Thatcher, and arguably the wholesale commodification of British industry into sellable chunks to echo the “greed is good” ethos of post-industrial America. As for the soft power of our Monarch, it seems a particularly egregious attempt to flatter what is even by American President standards the most easily flattered and childlike of White House occupants.
I wanted to abolish the monarchy after the prorogation. I saw a documentary recently on how much money the Monarchy makes. They’re expensive.
Prince Andrew certainly confirmed how I felt. You can’t respect a family that covers for him and attacks Harry. He left for a reason. I hate the way they all close ranks this big unconvincing shower of Royal Correspondents. I noticed the title of Queen Consort was quietly dropped for Queen for Camilla. They don’t have standards. They do themselves the most damage. I did feel some sympathy for Charles though. Having to meet that big deranged orange thug. Watching Trump and Charles it was weird. It was like Trump was trying to demonstrate he had his own royal family which figures if you plan on being King…in the real sense. Two kings.
"Yet what does all of this pandering add up to in practice? Very little, except to our home grown reactionaries who also long to resurrect a vanished world"
"Trump to remove whisky tariffs after King's visit"
Scotland's First Minister John Swinney called it "tremendous news for Scotland".
Swinney added: "Millions of pounds were being lost every month from the Scottish economy."
He said Scotland was grateful to the King for the key role he played.
I think that is a pretty clear example of what it adds up to in practice. You can measure it in millions of pounds.
I broadly agree that soft power is extraordinarily difficult to measure. In many and most ways it arguably often can't be measured. But if this decision goes ahead which is concretely linked to the visit then it does kind of contradict your title of "the illusion of soft power". You don't have to be a royalist to see that.
What defines Britain, if not the monarchy? If the monarchy functionally dissolved tomorrow, then what would Britain's identity in the 21st century really be?
What might that “something” be? What really defines Britain? It can’t just be my biases of fish/chips, Virginia Woolf novels, Beatles songs, and Alan Moore’s comic books. 😉
I think that Trump's, and by extension the American "Libertarian" Right's, fascination with monarchy is far darker than just kitschy nostalgia for vintage Brittan. Many figures funding the populist-right have sympathies with Curtis Yarvin and the Neo-Reactionary movement; Said movement's goal is to "undo the enlightenment era" by destroying American democracy and replacing it with corporate feudalism.
That’s fair I think (see also Trump’s “Two Kings” tweet.
I’ve always considered “the special relationship” as something of a euphemism. It is essentially the changing times of colonial empires in the 20th century, the decline of British pomp coinciding with growing American imperialism. Best illustrated when the respective POTUS calls on Britain for its assistance and manpower in conflicts they themselves initiate - the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11, and likewise Iran today. The term reached something of a zenith in the 1980s when “special relationship” had people speculating whether there was a more intimate nature to the friendship between Reagan and Thatcher, and arguably the wholesale commodification of British industry into sellable chunks to echo the “greed is good” ethos of post-industrial America. As for the soft power of our Monarch, it seems a particularly egregious attempt to flatter what is even by American President standards the most easily flattered and childlike of White House occupants.
I wanted to abolish the monarchy after the prorogation. I saw a documentary recently on how much money the Monarchy makes. They’re expensive.
Prince Andrew certainly confirmed how I felt. You can’t respect a family that covers for him and attacks Harry. He left for a reason. I hate the way they all close ranks this big unconvincing shower of Royal Correspondents. I noticed the title of Queen Consort was quietly dropped for Queen for Camilla. They don’t have standards. They do themselves the most damage. I did feel some sympathy for Charles though. Having to meet that big deranged orange thug. Watching Trump and Charles it was weird. It was like Trump was trying to demonstrate he had his own royal family which figures if you plan on being King…in the real sense. Two kings.
I do think it’s shameful the King won’t meet with any of the Epstein survivors while he’s in the US.
So do I but I never expected he would. I wish he had.
"Yet what does all of this pandering add up to in practice? Very little, except to our home grown reactionaries who also long to resurrect a vanished world"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrp3pew2d5o
"Trump to remove whisky tariffs after King's visit"
Scotland's First Minister John Swinney called it "tremendous news for Scotland".
Swinney added: "Millions of pounds were being lost every month from the Scottish economy."
He said Scotland was grateful to the King for the key role he played.
I think that is a pretty clear example of what it adds up to in practice. You can measure it in millions of pounds.
I broadly agree that soft power is extraordinarily difficult to measure. In many and most ways it arguably often can't be measured. But if this decision goes ahead which is concretely linked to the visit then it does kind of contradict your title of "the illusion of soft power". You don't have to be a royalist to see that.
What defines Britain, if not the monarchy? If the monarchy functionally dissolved tomorrow, then what would Britain's identity in the 21st century really be?
I think that’s something we have to create for ourselves when we escape the suffocating embrace of monarchy
What might that “something” be? What really defines Britain? It can’t just be my biases of fish/chips, Virginia Woolf novels, Beatles songs, and Alan Moore’s comic books. 😉
British outright killed their monarch in the 17th century and lived in a republic, albeit briefly. The seemingly permanent can disappear.
I hope it does. But my question still stands.