What do you think?
Rate this book
Chatto CounterBlasts #10
The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain's Favourite Fetish
'Why, when the subject of royalty or monarchy is mentioned, do the British bid adieu to every vestige of proportion, modesty, humour and restraint? '
This is not a call for the monarchy’s abolition by fiat; illusions cannot be abolished. This is an invitation to think. In this scathing essay, Christopher Hitchens looks at the relationship of the press and the public to the royal family, unpacking the tautology and contradictory arguments that prop it up. In his inimitable style, Hitchens argues that our desire not to profane or disturb the monarchy is a failure of reason and a confusion of reality. Fealty to the magic of monarchy stops us looking objectively at our own history and hinders open-minded criticism of our present. It is time we outgrew it.
With the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee upon us, during a time of recession, high unemployment and national debt, Hitchens’ 10,000-word critique is even more relevant today than when it was first published in 1990. Part of the Brain Shots series, the pre-eminent source for high quality, short-form digital non-fiction.
'Christopher is one of the most terrifying rhetoricians that the world has yet seen.' Martin Amis
This is not a call for the monarchy’s abolition by fiat; illusions cannot be abolished. This is an invitation to think. In this scathing essay, Christopher Hitchens looks at the relationship of the press and the public to the royal family, unpacking the tautology and contradictory arguments that prop it up. In his inimitable style, Hitchens argues that our desire not to profane or disturb the monarchy is a failure of reason and a confusion of reality. Fealty to the magic of monarchy stops us looking objectively at our own history and hinders open-minded criticism of our present. It is time we outgrew it.
With the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee upon us, during a time of recession, high unemployment and national debt, Hitchens’ 10,000-word critique is even more relevant today than when it was first published in 1990. Part of the Brain Shots series, the pre-eminent source for high quality, short-form digital non-fiction.
'Christopher is one of the most terrifying rhetoricians that the world has yet seen.' Martin Amis
44 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
86 people are currently reading
1175 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Hitchens
163 books7,901 followersChristopher Hitchens was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic known for his sharp wit, polemical writing, and outspoken views on religion, politics, and culture. He was a prolific essayist and columnist, contributing to publications such as The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Nation.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
January 14, 2020
This will not be a long review as it is a short pamphlet on the monarchy. Hitchens argues that we might be better as "citizens" rather than "subjects," and points out the faults in the arguments against abolition. It is hard to disagree with his conclusions but it is even harder to believe that the country might, even for a moment, listen to reason. Tradition will continue to strangle the life from the United Kingdom, but there is little we can do about that now.
September 11, 2020
Ever since I have come to this amazing country, I have been perplexed with its obsession with the Monarchy. The royals are everywhere, and not in any ‘positive’ or ‘useful’ capacity but as ornamental dummies that stand to remind us, the ones from former colonies, of the shameful history and bloodshed that is writ in the history books. When I say history books, I don’t include ‘textbooks’ in that definition, as I have been often reminded that colonial truths are conveniently overlooked in the curriculum. Raised on a steady dose national pride, “We won the war”, and “Long live the Queen!”, generations have been intellectually malnourished to believe that the Monarchy is a symbol Britain’s rich culture and history.
When the rest of the civilised world has defenestrated such medieval institution, why this first-world flagbearer of modernity is still stuck in the past? Tabloids are fraught with absolute crap on the lives of the royals, rumours afloat that the Prince is having marital issues or that the Queens dogs have not been feeling well lately. The marriage of Henry and Meghan was a national affair. People were flocking to pubs and streets to see live transmission of the bizarre spectacle of inherited wealth and titles. Blissfully forgetting the 300K homeless on the streets of her majesty. While the Queen resides in a grossly inflated palace, her loyal subjects are left out to fend for themselves on the streets with much humiliation and little help.
I really enjoyed reading this short pamphlet, although not of his best works, to gain insight into what the great public intellectual of our age thought about this institution. I am sorry to see the vitriol he had for the subjects of his other pamphlets is nowhere to be seen here. I wonder why?
Finally, I believe that it falls upon the capable shoulders of the youth and coming generations to think critically about this massive burden on the exchequer. If the properties owned by the royals were to be used for public welfare, I imagine many of the ‘actually’ important institutions, such as NHS, will see better days. Or maybe we need to wait for a revolution. As Marx said, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
When the rest of the civilised world has defenestrated such medieval institution, why this first-world flagbearer of modernity is still stuck in the past? Tabloids are fraught with absolute crap on the lives of the royals, rumours afloat that the Prince is having marital issues or that the Queens dogs have not been feeling well lately. The marriage of Henry and Meghan was a national affair. People were flocking to pubs and streets to see live transmission of the bizarre spectacle of inherited wealth and titles. Blissfully forgetting the 300K homeless on the streets of her majesty. While the Queen resides in a grossly inflated palace, her loyal subjects are left out to fend for themselves on the streets with much humiliation and little help.
I really enjoyed reading this short pamphlet, although not of his best works, to gain insight into what the great public intellectual of our age thought about this institution. I am sorry to see the vitriol he had for the subjects of his other pamphlets is nowhere to be seen here. I wonder why?
Finally, I believe that it falls upon the capable shoulders of the youth and coming generations to think critically about this massive burden on the exchequer. If the properties owned by the royals were to be used for public welfare, I imagine many of the ‘actually’ important institutions, such as NHS, will see better days. Or maybe we need to wait for a revolution. As Marx said, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
March 8, 2018
The caustic tone of Hitchens still reaches the reader, 28 years after this particular work was published. In here, the author critiques the affinity of Brits for their Royal overlords, and questions the motives behind and the necessity of it.
July 16, 2012
Christopher Hitchens invites you to think about the Monarchy in Britain, or the United Kingdom - emphasis on the Kingdom - and ask yourself: do we really need it? Shouldn't we, as modern peoples, abolish it? Why do Britons define themselves with the Monarchy and why does it play such a prominent role, especially today? This is Hitchens' persuasive and interesting essay on why he believes the Monarchy should be abolished and I for one enjoyed it.
Yes, I'm a Republican (though not as Americans define the term) and have long wondered at friends and family who feel so strongly about the Queen and her family. Hitchens' essay reinforces my views but goes far deeper into exploring them than I ever have. He talks about how we rely upon invented tradition and how history is sanitised to favour the Monarchy - that the unsavoury parts are "edited" out when convenience calls (you know, the madness, the murders, the endless wars, slavery, etc.). He claims the Monarchy is a "state-sponsored superstition" that everyone in government must take part in if they are to have a career in politics. I think the BBC is party to this as well, broadcasting pro-Monarchy programmes so that vast numbers of the British population are transformed into supporters of the Queen.
I found it a brilliant read and a thoughtful, well written, and eloquent essay on our “national fetish" (excellent observation). As always Hitchens has produced a work that deserves as wide an audience as possible to provoke much needed discourse in our public sphere. The very fact that this is still a national conversation that needs to be had in the 21st century is astonishing. I'll leave this review with the ending sentences of his essay:
"A people that began to think as citizens rather than subjects might transcend underdevelopment on their own... Only servility requires the realm (suggestive word) of illusion. Illusions, of course, cannot be abolished. But they can and must be outgrown."
Yes, I'm a Republican (though not as Americans define the term) and have long wondered at friends and family who feel so strongly about the Queen and her family. Hitchens' essay reinforces my views but goes far deeper into exploring them than I ever have. He talks about how we rely upon invented tradition and how history is sanitised to favour the Monarchy - that the unsavoury parts are "edited" out when convenience calls (you know, the madness, the murders, the endless wars, slavery, etc.). He claims the Monarchy is a "state-sponsored superstition" that everyone in government must take part in if they are to have a career in politics. I think the BBC is party to this as well, broadcasting pro-Monarchy programmes so that vast numbers of the British population are transformed into supporters of the Queen.
I found it a brilliant read and a thoughtful, well written, and eloquent essay on our “national fetish" (excellent observation). As always Hitchens has produced a work that deserves as wide an audience as possible to provoke much needed discourse in our public sphere. The very fact that this is still a national conversation that needs to be had in the 21st century is astonishing. I'll leave this review with the ending sentences of his essay:
"A people that began to think as citizens rather than subjects might transcend underdevelopment on their own... Only servility requires the realm (suggestive word) of illusion. Illusions, of course, cannot be abolished. But they can and must be outgrown."
February 11, 2016
As I started this last night and and finished it this afternoon, I couldn't help but think how dated this argument is. Not that anything Hitchens said is not still true, it is, it's just that why are we still having this debate now? Weren't these questions settled in the 18th Century?
Then as I saw on Twitter today on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, apparently not. The monarchists are out in force with their asinine excuses for servility: well, the monarchy doesn't have any real power; it's not really political, it's harmless, it's a force for good; it's better than an elected president, it's British... STOP.
If you entertain any of those thoughts, please allow Hitchens a few moments of your time to appreciate his eloquence, and accept a chance to set the record straight. I suppose that only the converted will read Hitchens, but I'd like to think a wavering monarchist or two might read this polemic and get up from their knees and join with the 18th Century traditionalists and repeat after me:
We are citizens, not subjects.
I can dream.
Then as I saw on Twitter today on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, apparently not. The monarchists are out in force with their asinine excuses for servility: well, the monarchy doesn't have any real power; it's not really political, it's harmless, it's a force for good; it's better than an elected president, it's British... STOP.
If you entertain any of those thoughts, please allow Hitchens a few moments of your time to appreciate his eloquence, and accept a chance to set the record straight. I suppose that only the converted will read Hitchens, but I'd like to think a wavering monarchist or two might read this polemic and get up from their knees and join with the 18th Century traditionalists and repeat after me:
We are citizens, not subjects.
I can dream.
April 29, 2018
Points out the obvious ridiculousness and wastefulness of having a family effectively “living on the dole” and at the same time supposedly running a country. What an antiquated and moronic concept. Fraught with danger, nepotism, and an unbelievable caste system which is supported by the very people from whom it strips inalienable rights. Hitchens challenges the national consciousness which supports this institution. Moreover he points out how ludicrous the situation has become when subjects try to sugarcoat the dubious, violent, and corrupt history of the institution which has managed to maintain a free lunch in the country for hundreds of years. Oust that collection of freeloaders.
December 2, 2019
One of the central thesis of this essay, originally written in 1990, is that the Monarchy leads to unthinking reverence and lack of critical thinking in Britain. Recent events seem to bear that unfortunately (see: (https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/cele...) which made this essay more relevant than I expected.
This was the first essay I read by Mr. Hitchens and I was surprised by the lack of vitriol. It’s a well argued essay and very clear in his central thesis - i.e. the Monarchy is not relevant - but doesn’t become mean spirited in its criticism somehow. As an example, in response to the fact that the monarchy provides the nation it’s identity, Mr. Hitchens argues that:
“So, whatever our current awe, discretion and unction may claim for itself, it cannot decently claim to be part of a sturdy, confident English tradition ...
He doesn’t name call the Monarchists at any point in the essay; that is probably a reflection of the current political discourse but I found surprising.
In the end I found the essay engaging but I couldn’t help but reflect now on the rise of social media / influencers and how they fit into pageantry and celebrity. The rise of social media influencers would indicate that the power of charisma and personality remains undimmed which makes me think that the Monarchy fulfils a more “spiritual” function. As an atheist, Mr. Hitchens would probably scoff at the necessity of continuing an institution for such a reason but I think there is something fundamental in human nature which wants something that creates awe in us. I think the essay could have responded to that in a little more detail.
There are also some issues with the argument. For example, Mr. Hitchens argued that the Monarchy is not necessary for British identity because the Monarchy has not been universally loved throughout history. The issue is that there is a logical fallacy in that response for me. Loving the Monarchy is not the only possible way it provides identity; hating it does that too. National preoccupation is enough to define oneself; it can be in contrast to the institution as well as love for it.
Basically, the essay is well argued and obviously does not go into the need for Celebrity. It made me want to go and pick up the book Celebrity by Chris Rojek. I am going to try to get my hands on it and it’s follow up to see whether the Monarchy can be understood in that context as something that provides spectacle and meaning in a less logical and more human desire perspective.
This was the first essay I read by Mr. Hitchens and I was surprised by the lack of vitriol. It’s a well argued essay and very clear in his central thesis - i.e. the Monarchy is not relevant - but doesn’t become mean spirited in its criticism somehow. As an example, in response to the fact that the monarchy provides the nation it’s identity, Mr. Hitchens argues that:
“So, whatever our current awe, discretion and unction may claim for itself, it cannot decently claim to be part of a sturdy, confident English tradition ...
He doesn’t name call the Monarchists at any point in the essay; that is probably a reflection of the current political discourse but I found surprising.
In the end I found the essay engaging but I couldn’t help but reflect now on the rise of social media / influencers and how they fit into pageantry and celebrity. The rise of social media influencers would indicate that the power of charisma and personality remains undimmed which makes me think that the Monarchy fulfils a more “spiritual” function. As an atheist, Mr. Hitchens would probably scoff at the necessity of continuing an institution for such a reason but I think there is something fundamental in human nature which wants something that creates awe in us. I think the essay could have responded to that in a little more detail.
There are also some issues with the argument. For example, Mr. Hitchens argued that the Monarchy is not necessary for British identity because the Monarchy has not been universally loved throughout history. The issue is that there is a logical fallacy in that response for me. Loving the Monarchy is not the only possible way it provides identity; hating it does that too. National preoccupation is enough to define oneself; it can be in contrast to the institution as well as love for it.
Basically, the essay is well argued and obviously does not go into the need for Celebrity. It made me want to go and pick up the book Celebrity by Chris Rojek. I am going to try to get my hands on it and it’s follow up to see whether the Monarchy can be understood in that context as something that provides spectacle and meaning in a less logical and more human desire perspective.
June 6, 2022
A very good time to read this book. It feels increasingly uncomfortable that we have a family who 'rule' our country. OK, I know people will say that they are just there for pageantry and she's a lovely old woman but is that good enough? What's the point? Why? How can we assume that all monarchs would do the best (their best) for our country? It's time to revisit the monarchy.
June 16, 2016
I always find it uncanny that whatever book I tend to read it manages to connect in one way or another (often bizarrely) to things going on around me at that point in my life. So it was with this: I was reading it on my Kindle in between 'acts' at the Charleston Festival. I would shortly encounter a double act: Rachel Johnson the stunning sister of Boris (the Brexit) Johnson, former editor of The Lady and Brigid Keenan, former Fashion Editor of the Sunday Times and an editor of Nova and the Observer. (RJ was there promoting Fresh Hell, the final novel in her Notting Hill trilogy which has fun at the expense of the super rich; BK Full Marks for Trying, a memoir of the swinging 60s from her rebellious left wing perspective).
One of the questions from the floor to Brigid and Rachel was along the lines of which 2 people would you like to invite to a dinner party. R.J asked if she could opt for someone who was dead. This was allowed! She plumped for Christopher Hitchens in that case and the Queen, currently very much alive. To my surprise Brigid also wanted to invite the Queen.
I read this fairly quickly, it's not a long read nor an especially memorable one. A few points lodged in my mind though and helped make the reading experience worthwhile:
1.What is it about monarchy/royalty that makes grown men and women, normally quite sensible, go weak at the knees to the exclusion of more important national and international matters?
2. Undemocratic - royal influence = power.
3. Abuse by ministers of the royal prerogative.
4. Monarchy perpetuates an unhealthy class system.
5. Because our constitution is largely unwritten the monarch's role is not strictly defined and therefore much of the reverence which should attach to the constitutional role of the monarch is transferred to her person.
The book is pretty dull and rather dated I felt and littered with a lot of words I was unfamiliar with. What a thicko I felt to be. Never mind, according to Hitchens HM and her family aren't very bright either, so at least we have that much in common. But the very witty Brigid and Rachel want her to come to dinner, so she's presumably not a bore as well.
I suspect if Britain votes to leave the EU and Britannia willingly transforms herself into Ruritania we'll need the monarchy more than ever – economically and constitutionally at least . We need to keep foreign currency coming in and then HM will need to knock a few political heads/egos together at the end of a day and hopefully avoid a constitutional crisis.
One of the questions from the floor to Brigid and Rachel was along the lines of which 2 people would you like to invite to a dinner party. R.J asked if she could opt for someone who was dead. This was allowed! She plumped for Christopher Hitchens in that case and the Queen, currently very much alive. To my surprise Brigid also wanted to invite the Queen.
I read this fairly quickly, it's not a long read nor an especially memorable one. A few points lodged in my mind though and helped make the reading experience worthwhile:
1.What is it about monarchy/royalty that makes grown men and women, normally quite sensible, go weak at the knees to the exclusion of more important national and international matters?
2. Undemocratic - royal influence = power.
3. Abuse by ministers of the royal prerogative.
4. Monarchy perpetuates an unhealthy class system.
5. Because our constitution is largely unwritten the monarch's role is not strictly defined and therefore much of the reverence which should attach to the constitutional role of the monarch is transferred to her person.
The book is pretty dull and rather dated I felt and littered with a lot of words I was unfamiliar with. What a thicko I felt to be. Never mind, according to Hitchens HM and her family aren't very bright either, so at least we have that much in common. But the very witty Brigid and Rachel want her to come to dinner, so she's presumably not a bore as well.
I suspect if Britain votes to leave the EU and Britannia willingly transforms herself into Ruritania we'll need the monarchy more than ever – economically and constitutionally at least . We need to keep foreign currency coming in and then HM will need to knock a few political heads/egos together at the end of a day and hopefully avoid a constitutional crisis.
September 3, 2013
Working at a magazine that frequently banks on a fascination with British royals among the American reading public, I'm frequently provoked to ask myself two questions. Why haven't they gone away yet? Given that they haven't, why does the fascination persist? We in the U.S. dethroned the monarchy in our political system, for very good reasons that have been honored to greater or lesser degree in many other countries of the world, yet a large crowd among us later put it back on a pedestal from which, apparently, no revolution can topple it. Certainly, reasoned argument doesn't touch it. Nor do embarrassments do anything but add to its appeal. As for why Britain hasn't finished the job it began in the 17th century, the same responses seem to apply. One is tempted to conclude, on a dim and cloudy morning at any rate, that idolatry never dies.
More can be said against the monarchy from a British perspective than Christopher Hitchens says here. The cost, for instance. And many side notes could be added, especially if he were to revise this work now. One wonders, for instance, how Hitchens would have regarded the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics, which included, in its presentation of Britain to the world, the current monarch but coupled her with the fantastic and fictional figure of James Bond. Harder to reckon is whether he would still write that America had seen no president quite as bad as King George III. The rewrite will never come, but as I said he could've written at greater length. Back in 1990, for whatever reason, Hitchens must've decided to toss off a relatively short critique in a few mornings. Nonetheless, he makes the case well.
I won't recount his arguments or borrow any of the quotable lines, from other writers (John Locke, for instance) as well as from the master polemicist himself. But I don't mind admitting that I was pretty ignorant on one issue, that of what power the crown possesses and uses. Hitchens cleared that up, and anyone who thinks the monarchy is purely ceremonial would do well to spend a few hours learning otherwise.
Idolatry may never die, but its critics can and do. Hitch, as he was known to friends and colleagues, is no longer with us. In an effort to transcend the mood of the morning, I choose to order two final notes in a positive way: the magazine where I work does indeed bank on the royal fetish, but it also published, until the end of his life, Christopher Hitchens.
More can be said against the monarchy from a British perspective than Christopher Hitchens says here. The cost, for instance. And many side notes could be added, especially if he were to revise this work now. One wonders, for instance, how Hitchens would have regarded the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics, which included, in its presentation of Britain to the world, the current monarch but coupled her with the fantastic and fictional figure of James Bond. Harder to reckon is whether he would still write that America had seen no president quite as bad as King George III. The rewrite will never come, but as I said he could've written at greater length. Back in 1990, for whatever reason, Hitchens must've decided to toss off a relatively short critique in a few mornings. Nonetheless, he makes the case well.
I won't recount his arguments or borrow any of the quotable lines, from other writers (John Locke, for instance) as well as from the master polemicist himself. But I don't mind admitting that I was pretty ignorant on one issue, that of what power the crown possesses and uses. Hitchens cleared that up, and anyone who thinks the monarchy is purely ceremonial would do well to spend a few hours learning otherwise.
Idolatry may never die, but its critics can and do. Hitch, as he was known to friends and colleagues, is no longer with us. In an effort to transcend the mood of the morning, I choose to order two final notes in a positive way: the magazine where I work does indeed bank on the royal fetish, but it also published, until the end of his life, Christopher Hitchens.
June 3, 2012
As Our Man started this last night and and finished it this afternoon, he couldn't help but think how dated this argument is. Not that anything Hitchens said is not still true, it is, it's just that why are we still having this debate now? Weren't these questions settled in the 18th Century?
Then as Our Man saw on Twitter today on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, apparently not. The monarchists are out in force with their asinine excuses for servility: well, the monarchy doesn't have any real power; it's not really political, it's harmless, it's a force for good; it's better than an elected president, it's British... STOP.
If you entertain any of those thoughts, please allow Hitchens a few moments of your time to appreciate his eloquence, and accept a chance to set the record straight. Our Man supposes that only the converted will read Hitchens, but he'd like to think a wavering monarchist or two might read this polemic and get up from their knees and join with the 18th Century traditionalists and repeat after Our Man:
We are citizens, not subjects.
Our Man can dream.
Then as Our Man saw on Twitter today on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, apparently not. The monarchists are out in force with their asinine excuses for servility: well, the monarchy doesn't have any real power; it's not really political, it's harmless, it's a force for good; it's better than an elected president, it's British... STOP.
If you entertain any of those thoughts, please allow Hitchens a few moments of your time to appreciate his eloquence, and accept a chance to set the record straight. Our Man supposes that only the converted will read Hitchens, but he'd like to think a wavering monarchist or two might read this polemic and get up from their knees and join with the 18th Century traditionalists and repeat after Our Man:
We are citizens, not subjects.
Our Man can dream.
April 19, 2017
"Humans should not worship other humans at all, but if they must do so it is better than the worshipped ones do not occupy any positions of political power."
The Monarchy is an essay which, as the title suggests, focuses on the fetishisation of the Royal Family, continually prompting the question that many regard as taboo: is the Royal Family needed?
Personally, I'm indifferent towards the Royal Family because to hold a strong opinion on them is futile: If I was to call for the abolition of the redundant dynasty, I would inevitably be ignored, as I'm nothing more than a pleb to these "blue-bloods". If I was to stand in support, I would still be ignored. There is so little that we, the people, can do about something that has been entrenched in our foundation as far back at the 17th century. It's something that was deemed unassailable before we were born, and it's most likely something that will be still be active once we are dead. Thankfully, we have a parliament that, in most instances, does a reasonable job of running the country - of course, they're led by the prime minister, but democracy is a wonderful thing (sometimes).
The Monarchy is an essay which, as the title suggests, focuses on the fetishisation of the Royal Family, continually prompting the question that many regard as taboo: is the Royal Family needed?
Personally, I'm indifferent towards the Royal Family because to hold a strong opinion on them is futile: If I was to call for the abolition of the redundant dynasty, I would inevitably be ignored, as I'm nothing more than a pleb to these "blue-bloods". If I was to stand in support, I would still be ignored. There is so little that we, the people, can do about something that has been entrenched in our foundation as far back at the 17th century. It's something that was deemed unassailable before we were born, and it's most likely something that will be still be active once we are dead. Thankfully, we have a parliament that, in most instances, does a reasonable job of running the country - of course, they're led by the prime minister, but democracy is a wonderful thing (sometimes).
May 5, 2013
Let's face it: the British monarchy makes for a pretty easy target. You don't need someone like Hitchens to tell you it's an inherently flawed concept. That's not to say this isn't an enjoyable read...just a rather frivolous one.
July 30, 2012
Neglects to explore the injustice of inherited privilege and the gender, ethnic and religious bias of the monarchy which is what I was hoping for.
October 8, 2024
Hitchens would have had a blast with all the drama the royals have been for the past 5 years.
December 31, 2022
Down with the Monarchy!
August 21, 2012
One day early in the morning I was feeling ever more broody as I mooned around the landscape of my Kindle. I’d been clicking and sniffing between books I could read next, in that horrible in- betweeny mood in which I found myself. I’d just finished reading the second volume of an excellent trilogy and I needed a break, a breather, a period of recuperation and recharge before plunging into the explosive third volume and it was in this ‘need a short, sharp break’ frame of mind that I browsed my 5-way button to The Monarchy ~ A Critique by Christopher Hitchens, for no particular reason apart from the need for a total change. By the time I’d reached the end of the free sample I was chortling away as I hadn’t done for many a merry month and rarely have I clicked that ‘buy’ button with such eagerness. ‘After all,’ I reasoned to myself, ‘£1.49’s just over what I paid for a pint of IPA draught at the local when I moved to this village 30 years ago.’
So without further ado let’s take a look at the The ‘News’ presented as if it’s set in stone. As Christopher Hitchens (1949—2011) writes: “We know that this strident, bombastic noise is a subliminal appeal to think of ‘News’ as part drama, part sensation and part entertainment”. The beauty of this opiated numbing show is that you never know whether your trip is going to be good or bad. The same thrumming monumental brass rhythms will tell us either that the Queen Mother has got a fish bone lodged in her throat, or that we’ve just severed diplomatic relations with Iraq. YOU are left to decide which item carries the greater weight.
Chris (Yes, let’s hob-nob for a bit!) invites us to look at absurdities like the ‘Investiture’ of Royalties which to most of us mean a lot if we don’t think about them, but examined closely they amount to absolutely nothing. Just look at this on the myth of the ‘Investiture’: “The official guide to the ceremony dissolves in contradiction here, because it says of the sacral moment that it comes from Zadok the priest, who anointed Solomon as King of the Jews, and that the ceremony follows the old Saxon ritual, and that the moment is to be accompanied by the singing of Handel.”
The more we bring our pet-theories into the light, the more threadbare, nay mendacious our propaganda seems. ‘Invisible earnings’ may indeed be comforting dummies to suck in times of crisis, but in these days of costing everything up why do the powers that be seem incapable of coming up with an estimate? And while we’ve revelling in contradictions, what exactly is this ‛special relationship’ which we apparently hold with the USA? — What does it amount to? In these days of costing everything up, listing and categorising every aspect of our lives, which boxes does it tick? And what exactly is the ‘unseen hand’ of the money market?
The End of This Post
Back-chatter :
End, what do you mean, ‘End’? Monarchies and Dreams don’t have an 'End'. They dissipate in the morning mist when the sun rises, only to re-form with the coming of the night. Monarchies keep folks dreamy, happy ready to chase the rainbow to its end.
Think Barbara Taylor Bradford, man, finish with all this Woman of Substance fantasy and begin to Hold That Dream. Never mind about subscribing to The Sun or Mail, just keep to the news for your daily fix. Suck the curate’s egg of the ice-cream cone, starting with the sickly raspberry ripple and the tang of the lemon twist. Lick your way through the chilled artery-clogging fat of the ice cream and don’t stop until you reach the sickly nugget of treacle at the end. Worry not, you’re in the Ukay. Just keep taking the tablets and watching The News....
So without further ado let’s take a look at the The ‘News’ presented as if it’s set in stone. As Christopher Hitchens (1949—2011) writes: “We know that this strident, bombastic noise is a subliminal appeal to think of ‘News’ as part drama, part sensation and part entertainment”. The beauty of this opiated numbing show is that you never know whether your trip is going to be good or bad. The same thrumming monumental brass rhythms will tell us either that the Queen Mother has got a fish bone lodged in her throat, or that we’ve just severed diplomatic relations with Iraq. YOU are left to decide which item carries the greater weight.
Chris (Yes, let’s hob-nob for a bit!) invites us to look at absurdities like the ‘Investiture’ of Royalties which to most of us mean a lot if we don’t think about them, but examined closely they amount to absolutely nothing. Just look at this on the myth of the ‘Investiture’: “The official guide to the ceremony dissolves in contradiction here, because it says of the sacral moment that it comes from Zadok the priest, who anointed Solomon as King of the Jews, and that the ceremony follows the old Saxon ritual, and that the moment is to be accompanied by the singing of Handel.”
The more we bring our pet-theories into the light, the more threadbare, nay mendacious our propaganda seems. ‘Invisible earnings’ may indeed be comforting dummies to suck in times of crisis, but in these days of costing everything up why do the powers that be seem incapable of coming up with an estimate? And while we’ve revelling in contradictions, what exactly is this ‛special relationship’ which we apparently hold with the USA? — What does it amount to? In these days of costing everything up, listing and categorising every aspect of our lives, which boxes does it tick? And what exactly is the ‘unseen hand’ of the money market?
The End of This Post
Back-chatter :
End, what do you mean, ‘End’? Monarchies and Dreams don’t have an 'End'. They dissipate in the morning mist when the sun rises, only to re-form with the coming of the night. Monarchies keep folks dreamy, happy ready to chase the rainbow to its end.
Think Barbara Taylor Bradford, man, finish with all this Woman of Substance fantasy and begin to Hold That Dream. Never mind about subscribing to The Sun or Mail, just keep to the news for your daily fix. Suck the curate’s egg of the ice-cream cone, starting with the sickly raspberry ripple and the tang of the lemon twist. Lick your way through the chilled artery-clogging fat of the ice cream and don’t stop until you reach the sickly nugget of treacle at the end. Worry not, you’re in the Ukay. Just keep taking the tablets and watching The News....
August 13, 2016
HItchens. Applying his laser focus to the monarchy. Yes, of course it's going to be good.
Some favorite quotes from this one:
The only accurate nomenclature is the one that nobody employs - 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. The words express the hope of a political and historical compromise rather than the actuality of one. If it were to read 'The United State of great Britain and Northern Ireland' it would provoke unfeeling mirth. And the United Republic would sound positively grotesque.
The British also make more history than they can consume locally.
...the fabled inability of the new Princesses to keep any one thought in their heads for as long as a minute at a time.
Matthew Arnold: 'Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.'
...the number of times that a royal 'succession' has been peaceful or has resulted in 'stability' is relatively few. Between the execution of King Charles I outside the Banqueting House in January 1649, for example, and the extinction of the Jacobite cause at Culloden in 1746, not even Thomas HObbes himself could make complete sense of the monarchic principle. It kept having to be reinvented by force, and needed repeated infusions from already etiolated European mainland princelings. Even after the Hanoverians achieved grudging acceptance, which they did principally in the making of national and patriotic wars in the American colonies and against revolutionary and the Bonapartist France, and finally against their own Teutonic cousins, there were some shocks. It's not considered all that polite to dwell on the fact, but only an exercise of laughable moral absolutism in 1936 prevented (by accident admittedly, but then all things predicated on the hereditary principle are by accident) the accession of a young man with a pronounced sympathy for National Socialism.
The official guide to the ceremony dissolves in contradiction here, because it says of the sacral moment that it comes from Zadok the priest, who anointed Solomon as King of the Jews, and that the ceremony follows the old Saxon ritual, and that the moment is to be accompanied by the singing of Handel. The Saxons had no Handel, the British monarch must swear to uphold the Protestant faith, and so on and so on, but let it pass, lest the magic be unavailing. My point is that the word 'sacral' derives from the sacrum, the triangular bone that shields that back of the pelvis. Known to the ancients as the os sacrum or sacred bone it has a common root with 'sacrifice'. In other words, in this bit of preserved bone-worship, one is not exaggerating the use of the word 'fetishism.'
The United States, for example, has never had a President quite as bad as King George III, but neither has Britain had a king as admirable as George Washington. [clearly written before 2000, though Hitch would probably hold to this]
An incumbent in Washington knows he is in trouble on the day that cartoonists begin to represent him as a king.
The extraordinary Thomas Paine was to become the first general theorist of republicanism, transcending the rather narrowly Puritan anti-monarchists of the English Revolution and proposing a state where, as he put it with some warmth and emphasis: THE LAW IS KING.
Some favorite quotes from this one:
The only accurate nomenclature is the one that nobody employs - 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. The words express the hope of a political and historical compromise rather than the actuality of one. If it were to read 'The United State of great Britain and Northern Ireland' it would provoke unfeeling mirth. And the United Republic would sound positively grotesque.
The British also make more history than they can consume locally.
...the fabled inability of the new Princesses to keep any one thought in their heads for as long as a minute at a time.
Matthew Arnold: 'Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.'
...the number of times that a royal 'succession' has been peaceful or has resulted in 'stability' is relatively few. Between the execution of King Charles I outside the Banqueting House in January 1649, for example, and the extinction of the Jacobite cause at Culloden in 1746, not even Thomas HObbes himself could make complete sense of the monarchic principle. It kept having to be reinvented by force, and needed repeated infusions from already etiolated European mainland princelings. Even after the Hanoverians achieved grudging acceptance, which they did principally in the making of national and patriotic wars in the American colonies and against revolutionary and the Bonapartist France, and finally against their own Teutonic cousins, there were some shocks. It's not considered all that polite to dwell on the fact, but only an exercise of laughable moral absolutism in 1936 prevented (by accident admittedly, but then all things predicated on the hereditary principle are by accident) the accession of a young man with a pronounced sympathy for National Socialism.
The official guide to the ceremony dissolves in contradiction here, because it says of the sacral moment that it comes from Zadok the priest, who anointed Solomon as King of the Jews, and that the ceremony follows the old Saxon ritual, and that the moment is to be accompanied by the singing of Handel. The Saxons had no Handel, the British monarch must swear to uphold the Protestant faith, and so on and so on, but let it pass, lest the magic be unavailing. My point is that the word 'sacral' derives from the sacrum, the triangular bone that shields that back of the pelvis. Known to the ancients as the os sacrum or sacred bone it has a common root with 'sacrifice'. In other words, in this bit of preserved bone-worship, one is not exaggerating the use of the word 'fetishism.'
The United States, for example, has never had a President quite as bad as King George III, but neither has Britain had a king as admirable as George Washington. [clearly written before 2000, though Hitch would probably hold to this]
An incumbent in Washington knows he is in trouble on the day that cartoonists begin to represent him as a king.
The extraordinary Thomas Paine was to become the first general theorist of republicanism, transcending the rather narrowly Puritan anti-monarchists of the English Revolution and proposing a state where, as he put it with some warmth and emphasis: THE LAW IS KING.
Want to read
February 12, 2016
Description: 'Why, when the subject of royalty or monarchy is mentioned, do the British bid adieu to every vestige of proportion, modesty, humour and restraint? 'This is not a call for the monarchy's abolition by fiat; illusions cannot be abolished. This is an invitation to think.
In this scathing essay, Christopher Hitchens looks at the relationship of the press and the public to the royal family, unpacking the tautology and contradictory arguments that prop it up. In his inimitable style, Hitchens argues that our desire not to profane or disturb the monarchy is a failure of reason and a confusion of reality. Fealty to the magic of monarchy stops us looking objectively at our own history and hinders open-minded criticism of our present. It is time we outgrew it.
With the Queen's Diamond Jubilee upon us, during a time of recession, high unemployment and national debt, Hitchens' 10,000-word critique is even more relevant today than when it was first published in 1990.
I was late coming to the Hitchens party. Three or four years ago I found that Dawkins had gone daft and spent some time looking around for someone who spoke to me, for me, and that is when I teamed up with Hitch. Christopher Hitchens on the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales (1997)
Christopher Hitchens - Diana The Mourning After [1998] Loved how he summed this up by intimating that the golden boy, William, will grow stale (he has!) by waiting for his inheritance, and admonishes him to 'get a life'...
June 20, 2014
Certainly the preservation of the monarchy into the modern age of Britain must seem an inapt and incoherent one, yet if it was kept merely for symbolic purposes, with public consent, I would see little cause for concern. Hitchens however appears to present the most compelling case for its abolition in his response to the royal objection that it only "lends tone" to politics, rather than actively shaping it. Indeed, for advocates of an ever-endangered system of democracy, the spectre of the royal prerogative, amid less commonly appreciated modes of regal influence in the political sphere, looming over governmental proceedings must constitute a source of persistent unease.
June 5, 2022
A handy, concise guide to the main arguments against the British monarchy. As relevant in 2012 as when originally published, perhaps more so in light of the vapid, fawning reception the institution is getting since The Wedding.
ADDENDUM, 5th June 2022: A handy, concise guide to the main arguments against the British monarchy. As relevant in 2022 as when originally published, perhaps more so in light of the vapid, fawning reception the institution is getting since The Platty Joobs.
ADDENDUM, 5th June 2022: A handy, concise guide to the main arguments against the British monarchy. As relevant in 2022 as when originally published, perhaps more so in light of the vapid, fawning reception the institution is getting since The Platty Joobs.
August 16, 2013
Over 20 years old but Hitchens’s polemic remains a cogent one.
August 15, 2021
A powerful guidebook for arguments developed against loyalists to the British Monarchy, and arguably, every other human construct that enslaves ourselves. It is a mysteriously antithetical experience—to be atheist and loyalist—without altogether laying claim to an iota of interest in having monarchy intact. In this pamphlet, Hitchens demystifies how the royal fetish belies a self-professed tradition of rationality and liberty. Much to his disappointment, the fetish has not been outgrown by disillusionment with his witty words, in which time has clearly not invested, whilst does so to an expanding recognition for Her Majesty. Maybe time will tell, when the ruling monarch goes alongside the image of royal family and the fate of monarchy sealed. British people should wish this would be the case, because the next in line could very well remind you about royal prerogatives by an unsparing exercise.
November 16, 2021
Read in early 2021.
Is this an argument for abolition? Of course it is. But not for an abolition by fiat: for yet another political change that would come as a surprise to the passively governed. It is an invitation to think – are you serious when you say that you cannot imagine life without it? Do you prefer invented tradition, sanitised history, prettified literature, state-sponsored superstition and media-dominated pulses of cheering and jeering? A people that began to think as citizens rather than subjects might transcend underdevelopment on their own. Inalienable human right is unique in that it needs no superhuman guarantee; no ‘fount’ except itself. Only servility requires the realm (suggestive word) of illusion. Illusions, of course, cannot be abolished. But they can and must be outgrown.
June 11, 2022
Well argued. Hitchens writes with ‘natural’ energy.
Great. I feel that I should reread, take notes, and summarise the arguments. And probably will at some point.
Hitchens writes with natural energy. What I mean is that this essay doesn’t seem overly planned. It feels like he’s had the points in his mind for ages, then has simply sat down at his desk and written the essay quite quickly. Like the Mozart approach to composition, without meaning to sound pretentious. I’m not saying Hitchens is the Mozart of letters or anything, just that this keeps his writing fresh and energetic compared to much academic writing.
When I read Hitchens I’m always impressed by the massive amount of knowledge he can easily draw on : history, politics, philosophy, and literature.
Great. I feel that I should reread, take notes, and summarise the arguments. And probably will at some point.
Hitchens writes with natural energy. What I mean is that this essay doesn’t seem overly planned. It feels like he’s had the points in his mind for ages, then has simply sat down at his desk and written the essay quite quickly. Like the Mozart approach to composition, without meaning to sound pretentious. I’m not saying Hitchens is the Mozart of letters or anything, just that this keeps his writing fresh and energetic compared to much academic writing.
When I read Hitchens I’m always impressed by the massive amount of knowledge he can easily draw on : history, politics, philosophy, and literature.
February 13, 2023
A short pamphlet from Hitchens back in his good old days, when he was a brilliant raconteur contrarion of the best British tradition of pugilist radicalism, with one foot still in the Marxist, leftist camp, and not the bloated imbecillic apologist for war crimes he later became. Curiously enough for Hitch, he slightly misses his mark, and comes across as pulling his punches, waffling *terribly* around the subject without managing to really get his teeth into it.
I think the limits of the format affect making a really good argument, for to properly slaughter the monarchy you'd have to spare a good deal of time remorseless debunking their entire history. A good, but tad lightweight rapier snipe at this degenerate institution.
I think the limits of the format affect making a really good argument, for to properly slaughter the monarchy you'd have to spare a good deal of time remorseless debunking their entire history. A good, but tad lightweight rapier snipe at this degenerate institution.
December 7, 2017
It is a pleasure to read Hitchens even if you do not agree with him, and it is even more of a pleasure if you do. The man who trashes the obvious "heroes" from the Queen to Mother Theresa is the master of language and rhetoric, and self-proclaimed contrarian boggles the mind with his genius for polemic and his precision in writing beautiful prose.
"Is this an argument for abolition?" he asks, "of course it is. But not for an abolition by fiat: for yet another political change that would come as a surprise to the passively governed. it is an invitation to think." What a beautiful call for true democracy.
"Is this an argument for abolition?" he asks, "of course it is. But not for an abolition by fiat: for yet another political change that would come as a surprise to the passively governed. it is an invitation to think." What a beautiful call for true democracy.
September 13, 2022
Written by a younger Hitchens than many of us are used to and it shows. The arguments aren’t quite as cohesive, comprehensive or persuasive. He also fails to address the question which most needs answering should any monarchical change occur and that’s the question of profitability. The “I don’t really care but they make profit for the country” crowd are the ones who’s minds can be changed should a sufficient answer be provided. They’re the swing voters needed to be swayed.
Nevertheless, effective examples (notably the case of Edward VIII) are used throughout which pro-reformers would make great use of.
Nevertheless, effective examples (notably the case of Edward VIII) are used throughout which pro-reformers would make great use of.
December 28, 2020
The Fiction of the Crown
The pamphlet is more or less a lost treasure of political debate. Well worth reacquainting with the format in this argument against the sentimental maintenance of the monarchy, whose presentation in the national psyche, according to Mr Hitchens (writing in 1990) is every bit as much a fiction as today’s Netflix incarnation.
The pamphlet is more or less a lost treasure of political debate. Well worth reacquainting with the format in this argument against the sentimental maintenance of the monarchy, whose presentation in the national psyche, according to Mr Hitchens (writing in 1990) is every bit as much a fiction as today’s Netflix incarnation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews