Princess Diana's Butler's Question About the Royal Family's 'Value for Money' Should Be Applied to Notions of Royalty in General
At least with American celebrities, one can attribute some basic merit to their success, but with the royals of Westminster, it seems a birth certificate is all that is requisite for a life of fame and opulence.
And yet, here we are, still fawning over the royals as we gawk at their latest exploits on the covers of the various dime-a-dozen Hollywood rags displayed along the check-out lane of our local grocery store.
As reported by the New York Post, the former butler to Princess Diana has spoken out in regards to the shaky ground on which the present monarchy rests.
Paul Burrel said, “The royals can’t be seen to be too excessive because I think the minute the public don’t want them there, they won’t be there.”
He followed up, emphasizing his point: “[T]he minute the public rise up, it’s too late”
Not only does he think the royal family should be careful to not come across as lavish, but he also warned that one wrong step could impact their public image. “I think it’s a dinosaur situation. I’ve always thought to myself that they could become extinct if they’re not careful,” he continued, saying that they “have to be very careful with the way they spend money and how much money comes from the privy purse, which is paid for by the taxpayer.”
Burrell speculated, “I think the royals have to show the way. They have to show the public that they are value for money and they are relevant to today, very important. I hope they’re getting the right, sound advice.”
However, he also concluded by making it clear that he believed the monarchy was “worth every penny.”
This is not exactly a glowing endorsement of the monarchy as an institution, and such a conversation would itself be impossible if it were not for the fact that there is an obvious disconnect between the cost of the monarchy and benefit it gives to the people of the British commonwealth nations.
First, the main purpose of any monarchy, by definition, is to rule. That is, it is a form of actual government. Even the very meaning of the word “monarchy” implies this. Per wiktionary: “From Old French monarchie, from Late Latin monarchia, from Ancient Greek μοναρχία (monarkhía), from μόνος (mónos, ‘only’) + ἀρχή (arkhḗ, ‘power, authority’). Surface analysis: mon- (‘one,’ ‘single’) + -archy (‘rule,’ ‘command’).”
However, the actual monarchy itself does not rule either in the executive, judicial, or legislative sense of governance, but rather operates on a purely hypothetical and symbolic manner, the BBC explained.
Second, the monarchy should be a contributing factor to the prosperity of the people and not a financial burden, for as the French Revolution taught all of Europe, an expensive monarchy is often paid for by the heads of the monarchs.
On this point, as reported by Aljazeera, defenders of the royal family would point out that the U.K. receives massive amounts of revenue from tourism ($1.95 billion in 2017) thanks to the royals — as opposed to their cost to taxpayers ($108 million between 2021 and 2022).
However, even this surface level argument begs the question: If they make so much money from tourism, why rely on tax dollars at all?
Perhaps, like all other celebrities, they should earn their income from their fame, not from the hard-earned dollars of others. Call this good old fashioned American dad-sense: If you are making so much money, you can pay your own dang rent!
Lastly, and most importantly, one of the oaths that were to be made by the English monarchs was to defend and uphold the Christian faith.
Indeed, with the existential moral and spiritual crisis which faces the West, an inspiring and charismatic Christian monarch who dared to lead Europeans back to Christ might even find support among Americans; however, as reported by Guardian, they have failed here as well.
However, this is a decision that needs to be made by the British, and no one can make it for them.
After all, we are Americans! It is in our blood to oppose kings and tyrants! Of course, we think the monarchy should be scrapped!
Yes indeed, we fought a revolution for representative government and independence from the crown, so we might be “citizens” rather than “subjects.”
However, we must be careful in our pride lest we fall.
As the Catholic libertarian and monarchist, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn demonstrated in his work, “Liberty or Equality,” our striving for equality leads first from a democracy with “equality-of-opportunity” to the idea of “equality-of-outcome” in which individual rights are ultimately eroded with the expansion of a regulatory welfare state which attempts to make everyone “the same” regardless of whether they earned it.
One only needs to examine the acts of the Jacobins after abolishing the monarchy in France to see that advocating for equality does not necessarily guarantee a free and moral society. Often it can result in an explosion of atheism, communism, violence, and hedonism.
This is what we are seeing happen in “the land of the free” right now, with our very eyes.
Our old nemesis King George could only have dreamed of the power to spy on the population and infringe upon the rights of his people as our own “government by the people” currently does. Indeed, the march for equality is the same mantra of the LGBTQ movement — and every other social cancer in our society.
This of course is not a defense of the monarchy. After all, King Charles is clearly a velvet wannabe tyrant in bed with the World Economic Forum.
But this is the entire sad point: We were supposed to be different.
At the end of the day, one king with a crown that chooses tyranny is no better than a few hundred representatives with a piece of a paper who also choose tyranny at the behest of their ESG espousing lobbyists in the banking sector.
We were, as Americans, entrusted with a uniquely liberating system and a brilliant constitution in which we enshrined certain inalienable rights which were endowed to us by God. But we have abandoned the faith of our fathers and set aside the laws of God.
In our zeal to rid the world of useless monarchs, we should not forget to look in the mirror and remember that our constitution is nothing but a mere paper crown when we forget the foundation upon which it originally rested.
As the founding father John Adams once said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The usefulness of the monarchy may have long expired, but if we do not get our own house in order, we may one day be asking if the benefit of our own system is worth the cost.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
