An article from MiCo, one of our regular contributors
In 1910, Scottish-Irish activist James Connolly wrote a pamphlet pleading with the people of Ireland to resist the visit of King George to their nation. Despite this piece of literature being over a century old, its ability to be moulded into the modern British monarchy is somewhat telling of the British monarchy’s antiquated existence.
There are differences, true. You’ll be unsurprised to discover that George was male, and even less surprised that Elizabeth Windsor is female. In the very first sentence, itself being a dedicated paragraph, Connolly alludes to the domination of royal news by outlets:
“As you are aware from reading the daily and weekly newspapers, we are about to be blessed with a visit from King George V”
This is extremely true today. Nicholas Witchell earns his pay by giving shocking to-the-minute coverage of Harry’s receding hairline, and pairs this with muddying his nose whenever the scarce follicles aren’t retreating like Mordechai Gur’s men during the Suez Crisis.
In the second paragraph, Connolly makes a good sentence which is unfortunately restricted to one ideology, but instead encompasses all republican thought:
“The future…requires that all political and social positions should be open to all men and women; that all privileges of birth or wealth be abolished, and that every man or woman born into this land should have an equal opportunity to attain to the proudest position in the land. The Socialist demands that the only birthright necessary to qualify for public office should be the birthright of our common humanity”
It would be a foolish venture to attempt to include every good part of this piece of literature, because it is such a blindingly concise, brief dismissal of every royalist argument and idea. Instead, we should strive to ask those who oppose the republican cause that which Connolly rhetorically asked the pamphlet’s readers:
What is monarchy?
From whence does it derive its sanction?
What has been its gift to humanity?
But of course, for all the PR drivel and sycophantic subjectivity that these questions will spawn, the answers in their purest form are provided by Connolly:
Monarchy is a survival of the tyranny imposed by the hand of greed and treachery upon the human race in the darkest and most ignorant days of our history.
It derives its only sanction from the sword of the marauder, and the helplessness of the producer,
Its gifts to humanity are unknown, save as they can be measured in the pernicious examples of triumphant and shameless iniquities.
Hence, the message from Connolly is simple. Let us not let republic/monarchy debates devolve into slanging matches, but instead use the origins, history and activities of monarchy (both current and historical) to speak for its suitability in a “democratic” nation in the 21st century.
