"A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German police spies.
The communist
Manifesto-Karl Marx
"The
muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the
palace, but on history's clock, it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was
setting in a dying blaze of splendour never to be seen again."
Barbara W.
Tuchman-August 1914
"if the
King were in the body of the enemy, he would as soon discharge his pistol upon
him as upon any private man," and if they did not think likewise, they
ought not to enlist under him."
Oliver
Cromwell
"The
attempt to minimise or eradicate the history of republicanism in England in the
seventeenth century is one of the British establishment's most important and
longest-running projects. Unlike in the United States and France, where the
revolutions of 1776 and 1789 have become a celebrated part of the national
story, the English Revolution is systematically marginalised in the British
education system and public life."
Georgi
Plekhanov
God save the Queen,
She's not a human being, and There's no future And England's dreaming
God Save the
Queen-Sex Pistols
Why was the
life of Elizabeth II the cause of so much love and adoration? It begs the
question, what exactly was her contribution to humanity? After all, she lived a
long and privileged life. She was a billionaire with more money than most
people can dream of and belonged to a family that deeply sympathised with the
Nazis. Remember Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform. Or the picture in the
tabloid press of members of the Royal family giving Nazi salutes.
As for the
funeral, as Chris Marsden says, it takes place amidst the spectre of war and
revolution.[1]
Marsden's excellent article delves into history to expose the absurdity of the
whole affair. Speaking of a previous royal funeral, that of Edward VII, the American historian Barbara W.
Tuchman says in the book The Guns of August, "The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled
nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history's clock, it
was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of
splendour never to be seen again."
Another
article on wsws.org examines the bourgeoisie's sudden deep love affair with the
royals. Joseph Scalice's scathing
article points out that "Monarchy
is an institution of colossal stupidity, a barbaric relic of the feudal past;
its persistence is an embarrassment to humanity. Founded on heredity, shored up
with inbreeding, intermarriage and claims of divine right, the monarchic
principle enshrines inequality as the fundamental and unalterable lot of
humanity. It maintains this lot with the force of autocratic power."[2]
Although the
English bourgeoisie buried "the ghosts of its republican ancestors long
ago", that time was the 17th century when things were
different. Then the English bourgeoisie
killed a king, established a republic and got rid of the house of lords, a tad
different from today's fawning over a bunch of crooks, child traffickers and
Nazi lovers.
The English
bourgeoisie does not like to be reminded of its revolutionary past. As the
Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov wrote in his extremely perceptive essay:
"The
attempt to minimise or eradicate the history of republicanism in England in the
seventeenth century is one of the British establishment's most important and
longest-running projects. Unlike in the United States and France, where the
revolutions of 1776 and 1789 have become a celebrated part of the national
story, the English Revolution is systematically marginalised in the British
education system and public life. England passed through her revolutionary
storms in the seventeenth century, and there were then two revolutions: the
first led, among other things, to the execution of Charles I, while the second
ended with an animated banquet and the rise of a new dynasty.
But the
English bourgeoisie, in the evaluation of these revolutions, manifests very
divergent views: while the first, in its eyes, does not even deserve the name
'revolution' and is simply referred to as 'the great rebellion, the second is
given a more euphonious appellation; it is called 'the glorious revolution. The
secret of this differentiation in evaluating the two revolutions has already
been revealed by Augustin Thierry in his theses about the English revolutions. In
the first revolution, the people played an important role, while in the second,
the people participated hardly at all. When, however, a people mount the stage
of history and begin to decide the destinies of their country according to its
power and best understanding, then the higher classes (in this case, the
bourgeoisie) get out of humour. Because the people are always 'raw' and, if the
revolutionary devil begins to pervade it, also becomes 'coarse', the higher
classes have a way of always insisting upon politeness and gentle manners—at
least they demand these of the people. This is why the higher classes are
always inclined to put upon revolutionary movements if prominently participated
in by the people, the stamp of 'rebellions'.[3]
It is not
only the English bourgeoisie that would like to see the English revolution
buried along with its brief republican past. As Leon Trotsky wrote, many
historians have sought to " vulgarise the social drama of the seventeenth
century by obscuring the inner struggle of forces with platitudes that are
sometimes interesting but always superficial." These historians have not
exactly covered themselves in glory over the death of Elizabeth II.
Historian Clive
Irving who is not exactly a Marxist called the funeral a 'façade' and said that
the Royal Family should 'atone' for slavery. Irving said the Royal Africa
Company, founded by Charles II in 1666, "concealed a very evil enterprise
which was shipping slaves from Africa to the Caribbean colonies.'Not exactly
calling for a Marxist insurrection to replace the Monarchy, but this did not
stop the torrent of abuse he received from several sycophantic historians
"Zareer
Masani, a historian and author, responded to Irving's comments by saying: 'His
comments are pretty old hat because these kinds of comments have been made
about the Monarchy for the last decade by Black Lives Matter and those sorts of
groups. I don't see anything new. The Empire was overall very positive for most
parts of the world. There were mistakes and violence in pockets, but on the
whole, it was a benevolent institution which gave most of the world foundations
for modern nationhood and economy. I don't think it has anything to apologise
for.'
Perhaps the
most stupid and crass comment came from one historian who wrote, "'The
British crown stand above politics and outside politics, both domestic and
international.[4]
At last, the Queen has a fitting epitaph.
Working people need to wake up and smell the coffee, the Monarchy is no friend of the working class. In Requiem For a Dream, Hubert Selby Jr writes, "Eventually we all have to accept total responsibility for our actions, everything we have and has not done. I suspect there will never be a requiem for a dream, simply because it will destroy us before we can mourn its passing”.
Notes
Edward VII –
King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India
(1841-1910)
[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/19/srjc-s19.html
[2] The adulation for Elizabeth II: The
capitalist class celebrates the principle of monarchy-www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/17/pers-s17.html
[3] George Plekhanov-The Bourgeois
Revolution-The Political Birth of Capitalism
[4]
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231847/Queens-funeral-Historians-slam-royal-biographers-comments-state-funeral-fa-ade.html
