Enough of this royal nonsense

CONGRATULATIONS to the editors of the Manila Times. It was the only broadsheet not to display such a colonial mentality that it headlined the September 10 death of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth 2 and pictures of her did not occupy most of the first page. The front pages of The Inquirer, Star, Bulletin were more British than those of the Daily Mail, the Guardian or the Times of London.

A newspaper is the soul of a nation and our soul has little to do with Elizabeth II and the United Kingdom. Our only major historical contact with England was a horrific episode, when the English in 1762 pillaged Manila for 30 hours and occupied it for three months, following their “Seven Years’ War” with Spain. . Even in terms of economic ties, the UK is less important to us, being our 20th largest trading partner. I bet a lot of readers of these papers were scratching their heads wondering “Didn’t Elizabeth Taylor and Elizabeth Ramsey die years ago?”

Of course, I mourn Elizabeth 2, but damn it, she lived a very rich and luxurious life for 96 years, her family and her clan subsidized by the government with the annual $100 million Sovereign Grant to fund their public duties. The British Crown holds $78 billion in assets. Did he undertake a philanthropic enterprise such as those of the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation?

The continued adoration of Elizabeth II is a reflection of this Marxian thesis that the dominant worldviews are determined, in a nation, by its ruling classes, and in the world by the dominant superpowers of the United States and the United Kingdom – which, despite the rise of China and Russia, controls most of the world’s media and narratives.

This is so even though Britain’s power and prestige has declined over the past few decades, from being America’s partner in world rule, to its junior partner, and then to America’s hound. All of the wars that the United States has fought in the last 50 years have the United Kingdom as a “staunch ally”. During the American invasion of Iraq, the United Kingdom was the Americans’ main ally, even though its own legendary intelligence services had found no evidence of the “weapons of mass destruction” that the entire American government claimed to be the casus belli.

Get the latest news

delivered to your inbox

Sign up for the Manila Times daily newsletters

By registering with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and accept the terms of use and the privacy policy.


The British love Elizabeth for being a symbol of their nation, her “grandmother” who held the country together through the profound changes in the world.

For them. Not for us or for most of the rest of the world. While Mother Teresa’s crusade was a huge ego trip, she nonetheless captured the attention of Christians around the world to help the poor. During her 55-year reign, did Elizabeth use her prestige to draw attention to the unjust wars that the United States has waged, to condemn genocide and the colossal exploitation of Third World nations by his nation as the world’s greatest colonizer, or even on the urgency of climate change? No.

Writers who exaggerate her role in the world point out that she is queen of the 56 states of the Commonwealth of Nations. That, however, is such a misnomer, as these are primarily the territories that the UK colonized in its heyday, exploiting their resources and creating economic systems that generate poverty to this day. A rigorously researched 2019 book by renowned economist Utsa Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of almost $45 trillion from India during the period when the Indian subcontinent was under British rule in 1765. to 1938.

Much of the British reverence for Elizabeth is due to their psychological need. It reminds them of their country’s golden age in the 16th century, especially since the reigning queen (the term for a female monarch) was the first Elizabeth, when England defeated its rival superpower, Spain. , and began its rise as a global superpower at the time.


Unlike the first Elizabeth, the English constitutional historian David Starkey described the second Elizabeth as follows:

“She didn’t do or say anything that no one will remember. She won’t name her age. Or, I guess, anything else. I say that not as a criticism but just as a statement of fact. Even as a sort of compliment. And, I suppose, the Queen would take it as such. For she ascended the throne with one thought: to keep the royal spectacle on the road. After all, the Kingdom Kingdom has become a representative democracy and its reigning queen has no real power in the governance of the country.

Underlying this distinction for the second Elizabeth is the continued belief in the notion of monarchy.

Monarchy has been the main form of government that mankind has adopted for thousands of years, even from pre-Biblical times, its relatively recent end beginning with the French Revolution in 1789, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Revolution Republican Sun Yat-sen in China. in 1912. Christians even believe that the Jewish rebels whom the Romans crucified in 30 BC were “Christ the King”. Indeed, the afterlife for the faithful in Christian theology is a kingdom ruled by Jesus and the Queen Mother (Mary), the angels as his knights, and the 5,000 saints as his royal court. This religious twist, the baloney of royalty as good, has been etched deep into our collective consciousness.

It is total rubbish to claim that a family or a clan had been appointed by God to govern a country, a kingdom. Those who refused to believe this lie were slaughtered by monarchs, by professional military men such as English knights or Japanese samurai, romanticized today as much as ancient monarchies are.


The corollary big lie about ‘monarchy’ is the claim that the blood of the monarch whom God originally blessed to rule is passed on to his descendants, ‘kingship’ or ‘nobility’. I don’t think the Brits or anyone with the most rudimentary course in biology would believe the claim that the license to rule from the deity is passed down through the blood of the original license holder, that is say its DNA.

Yet it is surprising that the British and many Westerners revere Elizabeth Alexandra May Windsor as “Queen Elizabeth 2nd”, a reigning queen because of her “lineage” – which, ironically, came from the German house of Saxe-Coburg. -Gotha, changed to the House of Windsor only in 1917 by royal decree following intense anti-German sentiment in Britain after the First World War.

Movies continued to portray royalty as an institution for good. The TV series ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’ wouldn’t have become blockbusters if people didn’t believe in the monarchy: it’s the idea of ​​bloodline that allows Daenerys Targaryen to finally claim the throne and for the Ranger of the North to become King of Rohan. Indeed, the books on which the television series “The Lord of the Rings” was based were written by an eloquent monarchist, JRR Tolkien, who believed that only a virtuous returning king (Aragorn) ruling the kingdom of Rohan (England) would be able to defeat Sauron (Stalin).

I used to be fascinated by these claims that Jesus Christ had living descendants (as was the “thesis” of another bestseller The Da Vinci Code) until I have this “so what?” moment. Kingship, secular or divine, cannot be passed down through DNA.

Belief in kingship is undemocratic and elitist. He believes that a small elite of humans have been endowed by a deity with greater virtues and abilities than they alone can rule over men. It’s rubbish, as the English like to say.

It is a dangerous idea because it could disguise itself in other forms. Indeed, the idea of ​​a blood-borne monarchy was so powerful even among Filipinos that they elected a mediocre politician, Benigno Aquino 3rd, president almost entirely on the belief that his father’s blood flowed in his veins. intelligent and the purity of heart of his mother – the king and queen of the yellow cults.

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

Twitter: @bobitiglao

Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com

Book orders: www.rigobertoticlao.com/shop