One Artist’s Response To The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee

While the Queen’s barge sailed down the Thames with its 1,000 boat flotilla a flip side of the Royal coin was revealed, as dozens of supporters from Anti-Royalist campaign groups gathered on the bank, near Tower Bridge. They were calling for the abolition of the Monarchy. Editorial by: Interdisciplinary Artist Rebecca Mellor

Sometimes it seems that no discussion is openly permissible or is disregarded and generalised on certain subjects; when communicated within a dialogue, as part of the dynamic of ideas. The Queen and the Monarchy are of these apparently taboo subjects.

When raising any alternative perspective within company, or looking for open-dialogue within mainstream media, non concurrence seems overlooked, stifled or when occasioned, token in gesture. Within this context, should we not be wary of becoming somewhat superficial in our understandings of what ‘The Queen’ and ‘The Monarchy’ wield the power, authority, right and motive to do?

Affected maybe by a collective nostalgia, credence has been given to this institution for now being perceived as tradition. Do the underlying motives and states of exclusivity granted to a family hereditarily, by coincidence of birth, on merit of them being appointed by a God, fail to hold to account these elite kinsmen? Begging the question where does the Queen and Monarchy’s sovereignty lie? What do the ‘Queen’ and the Monarchy actually stand for? Who do they truly represent? What are the motives behind their actions?

Dismissing voices, by labeling them ‘dissent’, is excessively and overtly perpetrated, but what is the harm in asking the questions? Is it because spurious anecdotes, continuing under the weight of their own momentum, set forth as truth, are as liable to fall and be discredited as any other farcical notion? Ludicrous and outdated establishments have the potential to fall far quicker than the time it has taken to fabricate them, however loud the consent may appear to be at one moment.

Fortunately not everyone lives in the land of make-believe or is willing to submit to automatic compliance. The Queen, and her potentially ill-gotten gains, scrounged for centuries through some ‘God granted sovereignty’ is enough to make critical thinkers cringe. Especially anyone who may question a supposed right to rule granted from a theological myth, that they themselves do not believe in?

Those who might not be able to think for themselves, or believe this is the only way, since it has been thus previously, or cannot put the pieces of the problem-reaction-solution into perspective, to see that wealth divisions and immoral exploitation of a populace for Machiavellian gain was and is, perpetuated and instigated under the British Royal name across the world, fail to understand that someone with such potential power should indeed have a sense of, as well as a duty of, social responsibility in their time.

Should we all abandon our ability to think beyond what is presented to us, from those who seek to gain from the bias and hyperbole they peddle, and just be good little ‘subjects’ and work to consume and pay taxes that do not effectively benefit the individual, the populace or social infrastructure? Can we ignore any notion of thinking critically to go on and consume and comply some more, without any questions? I hear there is a commemoration biscuit tin available, although the themed sick-bags available seem more fitting.

As an an individual, we should respect the woman who is Elisabeth Windsor, of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family (despite the long history of corruption and exploitation) but surely we should not condone or play sycophant to her legend-made, inherited pedestal? No one could deny the undertakings the Queen has devoted her time to, productively, impotently or detrimentally towards the country, as an individual human being, but we should in no way take for granted lazy perceptions of the Monarchy. It stands to reason that our understanding of its institution should be congruent with the actuality of its existence, and what it represents now.

“But it is tradition”, does not give much weight to the argument for the continuation of a monarchy as in its current state, it fails to hold to account members of the ruling class whom have the power to affect change for the benefit of the people whom they suppose as their subjects, and yet repeatedly fail to do.

“She doesn’t have any real authority” does not hold water when seen as the communicator of government agendas, as in the Queen’s speech to parliament, or as a human being whom has instant media attention, a celebrity status. It places the Monarchy dangerously as purveyors of government propaganda and sway, on mutually beneficial grounds, puppets within their own puppeteer show. The Queen and the Monarchy are in no way benign.

“The Royals are good for tourism” also falls flat on its assertion. Defended on merit of their ability to create revenue, by logic, within the context of profit. Should we move towards emulating one of the most visited royal palaces in the world, that of Versailles, where the French Royal family were chased out of, prior to their respective beheadings? Also it would be worth noting that the Queen and institution of the crown’s wealth, would extend enough to solve some budget deficits, for the benefit of society? The fact that the Queen may sit comfortably in her throne, with her potentially priceless headgear, from her exclusive, removed standpoint, addressing the individuals of Britain regarding the necessity of austerity, seems not only an irony, but a little offensive in its blatant disconnect.

During the jubilee ceremonies and street parties that are taking place, spare a thought, if you jubilate, on the millions of people out of work, the thousands of people unable to currently provide a basic standard of living for themselves or their families, and the devastating blows which continue to be dealt to those on disability benefits or find themselves reliant on a welfare state, as a direct result of mismanagement of the country, its economy and infrastructure. Or the thousands of individuals who have been brutally slain in illegal wars.

We should not forget the role of the Queen as the head of an established church, a modern house of indoctrination to servitude and compliance, and the allegiances, which must be sworn in order for individuals to work as judges, MPs, police and within the armed forces amongst others. Could you, or have you sworn your allegiance to the crown? Surely any state of institutionalised sycophancy is potentially the breeding ground for the sanctified non-thinking agreer? How can we assess the ideas and ideals this institution rests upon, if bias is effectively enforced, under the royal name?

Since people who serve the country are accountable to the queen having made an oath to her, should she not currently be acting to hold them accountable rather than as a voice and sycophant for their policy decisions? Or is it all a Kafkaesque situation where no one can quite distinguish the interchangeable roles of monkey and organ-grinder?

With the rights and authority, which no one could deny the Queen is currently granted, comes responsibility. Whilst able to affect meaningful change, individuals should be held accountable if they are simply complicit in damaging and limiting their own supposed ‘peoples’ rights and quality of life whether they have been granted some-sort of divine right or not, whether you believe in that particular divine being or not. If we toss that out the window, it becomes clear that motives are simply self-serving, without even the guise of having a greater benefit to society. Perhaps in a bygone era we may have, at this point, heard the calls to ‘bring on the guillotine!’?

The Monarchy, like the Government and the media, represent their own interests, and therefore we should not only be encouraged to be able to question under what merit they act, but also see it as necessary in order to have a more balanced discourse on the subject.

Royal motives extend to reinforcing their mythically granted elitism and perpetuating their own abundant wealth and power, whilst pampering to the lowest common denominators within society, of which every mind is capable; the most inattentive and deplete of thought or substance.

The sovereignty of the Queen lies in the imbecilic attitude of so many to accept the supremacy of a family claiming Royalty. Sanctified through media, hype, and insidious Machiavellian relationships, the fools it seems, are the people who are willing to follow blindly.

It appears ineffably necessary, indeed healthy, to be able to question any assumed or projected authority over our lives, in the interests of rounded discourse, without inviting personal attacks or a pro-monarchist brick through your window. An open dialogue is conducive to developing an awareness of the issues, which affect our quality of life and our ability to be responsive to the changing needs and issues within a society.

Maybe the reason so many Royalists seems so defensive, unable to enter an open dialogue about the subject they become so passionate about, is down to a total lack of reasonable grounding, or the dubious basis on which they align their loyalties to Royalty.

Is it not whimsy that another human being should need to grant you a day of celebration in their honour? Everyday is surely an opportunity for you to grant yourself the choice to celebrate your own life, honour your existence on this planet? This is an expression of evolution, of your own imagination, within an interconnected interdependent species?

A line of questioning for any heterodox is laid out plainly, not for the sake of disagreeing but in order to understand further, provoke thought, maybe offer alternative perspectives and broaden our comprehensions.

Freedom of Expression may be our right, but are we always presented with different angles of the argument? It may not still be legal to lock someone up in the Tower of London for challenging divine sovereignty, but voices can be and are certainly suppressed in mainstream media, or undermined when they explore any national consensus based on ignorance, half-truth or indeed fiction. It is always noteworthy the different language used to create spin in the media; even the most subtle bias can reinforce the most fascist ideals.

We may be able to stifle Jubilee-nausea and re-ingest, swallowing for the Queen and her almighty pernicious rule, but a questioning of the merit, history and allegiances of monarchy and monarchist actions and ideals cannot be stemmed. Long live the people, along with their potential complicity to imbecility but also their capacity to question, think and understand further within an open dialogue.

Whilst hoping no one gets hung by the scope of their bunting, perhaps arming ourselves with a sick-bucket, just in case, would be an ample defense against the deluge of jubilations on the most imbecilic of grounds, that so many have to endure.

May any jubilations today, or any other day, be in honour of the people who inspire us to think, whom help us to acknowledge the reasons for, or lack of reasons behind individual standpoints; rather than supporting any spoon-fed idea or notion simply because we are led to believe it may be the consensus. Explore the dynamic; being a spineless sycophant need not be a life choice.

Image (below) and Text by Interdisciplinary Artist, Rebecca Mellor © 2012

The Rise of the Imbecile

This article has been written as part of a series of articles, on facets of imbecility within our culture, the sanctity of the superficial thought process, and silent complicity which may reinforce false assumptions, outdated ideas and models of belief, potentially detrimental to egalitarian and informed society. Here we may question the seeming immunity from open dialogue of certain ideas and states of being.


Modernism  +  Art20 -  New York - ArtLyst Event


Related Posts

Artic Biennale
Open Source Salon with Hauser and Wirth - A new monthly discussion group
Advertise your next show on Artlyst from £200 per week