Boomer-Zero Takes the Crown
Boomer-Zero Takes the Crown
Will Charles be able to keep the idea of England his mother helped create? A coronation special.
In the research for this article, I ran into Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic calling King Charles a “Boomer Zero” and I can’t unsee it.
BOOMER ZERO!
It explains so much, and most importantly - summarizes the Coronation and the new reign under Charles in two neat words.
I don’t even have to write my take on the Coronation, I can just write Boomer Zero in the title, leave the whole page blank and you’d get the point.
We clearly see a shift after Elizabeth II’s death. People are disheartened. There’s a lot of chatter about abolishing the monarchy. We’ve come to discover many people were actually Queenists and not so much Monarchists.
What was it about the Queen that made sense to us and Charles doesn’t? Aside from that whole Diana offense many of us got personal.
Caitlin Flanagan has an idea:
“More than anything, what Elizabeth was able to do, for an astonishing 70 years, that her feckless son will not be able to do was prevent a very large bill from coming due. She was allowed to keep the Great Star of Africa and the palaces and the untold billions of pounds because she was Elizabeth.
This is not an era of reconciliation and bygones being bygones. This is an era of reparations. A lot of people around the world don’t want to “celebrate diversity,” a concept wholly born of the dying West. They want their treasures back, and they know where to find them.”
The world wants its treasures back, and it knows where to find them.
Elizabeth was personable, charming. She took the mantle at 26 years old and devoted her whole life to the service. People grew up with her. Instead of being despised for the Crown’s involvement in colonization and devastations around the world, she was admired.
Monarchy made sense throughout history. But the times have changed, and the Royal Family today seems more like an elaborate grift than a useful institution enriching the lives of its people.
Journalist Ash Sarkar put it in good words:
“What it comes to, this generation in particular, young people are interested in values of fairness and representation. Whatever way you slice it, the monarchy is neither a fair nor representative institution”.
If their traditional role is to offer an escapist dream and otherness, they failed miserably with the Coronation. Britain is strapped for cash and to see all the gold, carriages, horses, ornaments, jewels - it was tone deaf and out of step. A desperation to maintain the fantasy of a continuous monarchy was palpable in the air.
I watched the Coronation on ABC7. The number of times the correspondents uttered the words: “It’s so exciting here!” - while you literally see nothing exciting behind them; they sounded like a couple at the end of a relationship trying to beat a dead horse alive and revive something that expired a while ago. It was sad to watch.
And to add more insult to our intelligence: “We’re seeing the ceremony that is more modern, is more inclusive”, just because there were a few black and brown faces in Westminster Abbey - whilst you had a black face amongst your literal family you failed to include in your charade, makes this ceremony laughable.
And they continue:
“What are your thoughts, as you see the diamond jubilee state coach leave Buckingham Palace? - one correspondent asks another.
“It’s incredibly impressive to see, and I think they will have a comfortable ride in that because they chose the Diamond State Coach, instead of Golden State Coach; they have hidden switches there, for air conditioning, for heating, it’s got suspension, so I think that really was quite important for them, to kind of feel very comfortable when they get to Westminster Abbey, because this is a long day for them, they are very much a center stage and they have been center stage all week, and I think the idea of arriving in that comfort but then keeping the tradition when they leave, kind of sums up a little bit what we’re seeing with this Coronation ceremony, this real mix with traditional and modern.”
I felt as though they were punking us with this coverage.
“Lot’s of talk about modernizing the monarchy, and I, you know, next you can see that they have definitely tried to be inclusive of everybody, in this country and around the world actually.”
They were stammering trying to deliver these scripted lines.
A diversity try-hard was unbearable:
“As we’re watching this, it’s very diverse. Yes, you notice it right away, in 1953 (when Elizabeth II was crowned) you definitely didn’t see this, it was a sea of older white men, that was the aristocracy at the time (is there black aristocracy today?), and to see all of these black and brown faces, some of them from various countries, some of them of course political leaders, it’s really fascinating to see.”
You catching my drift here? Do you not realize how insulting this is to every sane human being in pursuit of real actual change, diversity, and inclusion?
This cartel of a family placed a black woman walking next to a crown being delivered to the head that doesn’t deserve it, and they think just optics equal diversity? This action is in the realm of “but I know a black person” - default, unbiased 101 Racism For Beginners and we are still discussing these people?
A Royal Family, today, in 2023, who, au contraire from 1953 actually HAS mixed black aristocracy members in the form of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor; where they in Westminster Abbey? They HAD the chance to inflict a REAL change, and their reality-tv level of popularity contest affinities cost them that chance.
The jewels part killed me.
And they continue on this nonsense train:
“We see Kate wearing a sort of a headpiece, it’s not a tiara but it’s a beautiful kind of looking headpiece, I think the fact we’re not seeing them in tiaras this time really shows a different tone. In 1953 it was a sea of aristocracy in tiaras and coronets and this sets a very different tone for a modern Monarchy.
Well, there’s been a lot of talk about those jewels, right, and the history of those jewels and there were big questions about what they would wear today and whether they would wear some of these very controversial tiaras with the jewels, and clearly they are trying to tone this down a bit.
Well, Camila chose not to be crowned with the most controversial jewel in her crown, the Koh-i-noor that was taken from India, but the Cullinan diamond that was found in South Africa will feature today in the crown jewels that we’ll see.”
The British correspondent then chimes in, laughing:
“If we had to give back all the diamonds that we took I think there’d be would be no diamonds in these crowns” - (laugh).
This is not a joke people. And showcases how out of touch this lot is. Sam, one of my best friends that hails from India decided to sleep through Coronation in honor of her ancestors. This thing is real, people affected by this family want reparations, and accountability! And you have to HEAR them.
Correspondents also mentioned “Keep calm and carry on” I counted, about 11 times. And this is exactly what this institution wants its people to do - keep calm, carry on, let us exist, do not abolish us, look at our gold and clothes to escape from your tiny lives - while paying for our lavish lifestyles. We’re good for you, yes we cost loads of money but we bring tourists, we’re tone deaf, you’re broke but - TRADITION.
For who? What do the newly crowned King and Queen offer their subjects? Let’s be superficial for a moment and delve into the - “they offer an escapist dream and otherness, a fantasy”; was the Coronation a fantasy, really? Maybe it would be if it was Diana getting crowned yesterday. To see that beauty, grace; she had otherness.
Instead, we got a petulant man-child King who didn’t smile once, and we had a Queen who walks like she was taking the trash out, picking her hair constantly while the Archbishop is trying to place a crown on her head. There is a whole world watching your Coronation and you are picking your hair, tucking your hair, scratching your ear. I’ve never seen two less regal people in my entire life, trying to sell us on royalty.
Tradition? Is that William who brought his mistress to his father’s Coronation and placed their alleged illegitimate son to carry the King’s cape along George, his legitimate son, and heir?
What values did we see in that church? A pedophile and sex offender allowed to wear a cape displaying his accomplishments? The only real beauty, love, affection, and mutual accomplishment we could have seen in that church was Harry with Meghan and you robbed us of that.
The only time Charles was likable in his entire life was when he walked Meghan down the aisle. Those people only work ADJACENT to a supernova like Diana, Harry, or Meghan (Luis, incoming!), and they failed to see it.
This happens when your Monarch is not elected or vetted, but born into it. He got the job because he was the oldest child of someone that previously did it. This means often, you’ll end up with someone who’s just not up for the job. And Royal Family, throughout history, was always stuck with heirs who were less capable than spares. It was also stuck with heirs that weren’t as popular, personable, or likable as some other members of the family.
Always been their karma.
What is the heavenly Sovereign to do in this pickle; believing you are hand-picked by God to ascend to the throne while your brother, sister, or niece is better at your job than you? Play tricks to win a popularity contest, naturally. Get in bed with the tabloids to get favorable coverage and leak stories about your children, brother, sister so the public loves YOU more?
So if this is a popularity contest to keep the monarchy running, and not actually serving its people or making their lives better, is Monarchy needed?
Amy Davidson Sorkin has an idea:
“Harry observes that Meghan’s popularity with crowds in Africa and elsewhere seemed to put his family on edge. What’s good for the U.K. might not be the same as what status-conscious members of the Royal Family think is good for them. And it’s in the nature of a monarchy that they get to decide.”
Status-conscious? Or working for its people?
If the British Monarchy decides on things by what’s good for them, instead of what’s good for its people and the Commonwealth, why does the British public pay them?
Royals also contributed to Brexit. A move that devastated its citizens. How did they contribute?
“During the Brexit debate, Boris Johnson gave “advice” to Queen Elizabeth that she use one of her residual royal powers to “prorogue” Parliament, which meant sending the M.P.’s home for a few weeks, thus cutting off a key debate, and she did so. The U.K.’s Supreme Court later found that the prorogation had been wrong and unlawful. Brexit, as much as Megxit, provided warnings that the U.K. is badly in need of constitutional clarity and reform regarding the role of the monarchy.”
Brexit devastated its people. It left them strapped for cash. It created a housing crisis. It left U.K. with a “more closed economy, less access to markets, higher inflation, lower purchasing power, and a weaker pound”.
Again, why is Monarchy needed?
When it comes to Royals, there’s a radio personality - James O’Brian who offers the best I’ve heard analysis on monarchy. The way he deals with conservatives, traditionalists, “patriots”, and all-around hateful bigots calling in on his show is a masterclass in dealing with the sort spewing nonsense. He had a show the other day, and a woman called it, but this time such an eloquent, smart woman who summarized all my feelings about the monarchy today:
“I always felt its something inherently wrong about people having a position by virtue of birth, a notion of royal blood, I think its nonsense. There are horrendous inequalities and a lack of social justice, and Brexit was perhaps the catalyst. Brexit was based on the same faux-patriotism that the monarchy is getting their oxygen from.”
James:
“Queen was actually gutted about Brexit. The priority of flags and feelings over facts and evidence lends itself to Brexit and Royal Family and Royal Family and Brexit very neatly. People who are persuaded to care more about flags and feelings than they are about facts and figures are going to be likely supporters of Brexit and the Royal Family.”
The woman continues:
“Brexit and people supporting the monarchy are dedicated to something not progressive, it’s all about nostalgia. Wake up, its the 21st Century, there is a bigger gap between haves and haves-nots than has ever been. We have less social mobility and less opportunity for people to get on in life, and I feel the monarchy represents the apex of the class system which is the obstacle for people to utilize their talents. It takes an awful lot away from society because people are not able to get on and make a contribution, because they’re just stuck with trying to survive.”
She’s an absolute rockstar. And she continues:
We were not aware of all these ridiculous archaic rituals and they feel so incredibly incongruent, and maybe it was different in 1953, these things don’t work today. Bringing all these people of color and different religions in the attempt to bring it up to date, it just doesn't seem to work, because it’s all archaic.”
Monarchy is just nostalgia. It doesn’t work anymore. It’s nostalgia, it’s pageantry and these people aren’t working for you. In fact, you are working FOR THEM.
Money.
Still not convinced? Is tourism, escapism, fantasy, otherness? While you’re living in that fantasy, Charles is piling up cash. Michael Walker from brilliant Novara Media breaks down all the numbers.
Before his mother died and he was crowned King, Charles as Prince of Wales owned the Duchy of Cornwall. Duchy includes a mix of land and investments. And it’s a lot of land! Because he owned so much of the land, Charles was also a landlord, even to people that owned the houses they lived in. That’s because the homeowners on the Duchy estate exist in a bizarre feudal system where they must pay the annual rent to the Prince of Wales even if they own their house, because the land always belongs to him.
At some point in time, the Government gave leasehold property owners a right to force their landlords to sell them the land their houses are built on, but not Charles. He’s exempt.
It gives them the right to buy their landlord out so they own the land their property stood on. That law applies everywhere across Britain with the exemption of the Duchy. And, you guessed it - Charles.
The other thing the Government has done is grant leases to people for only THEIR lifetime. That means the people can build the house, but if they die, their house goes to the Duchy, no matter if the person has kids or a wife. After your death, YOUR house goes to Charles and not your family. Let that sink in.
It’s feudalism in the year 2023. That shit belongs to a different era!
These numbers are IMPORTANT.
The Duchy of Cornwall is worth a little over a Billion pounds. In the year 2021 it put a profit of 22 million pounds in Charles's pocket out of which he’s not obligated to pay corporation taxes and has no obligation to disclose where he invests his money.
All that wealth passed on to William when he became the Prince of Wales, who is not obligated to pay the inheritance tax on it. Still don’t get the workings of this Mafia? Let’s continue.
Meanwhile, Charles’ mother’s estate of Duchy of Lancaster passed on to him when she died. Again, you guessed it - he didn’t pay inheritance taxes on it.
Duchy of Lancaster consists of nearly 50 thousand acres of land, historic buildings, and commercial property across England and Wales, as well as a considerable investment portfolio. It’s worth 818 million pounds and it brought in 23 million in profit in 2021. Next year profits will go straight to Charles, again without having to pay corporation tax.
Charles also inherits the Queen’s vast personal fortune line properties such as Balmoral and Sandringham as well as her cash and investments. In total, the Queen is thought to be worth 370 million pounds, but we don’t actually know the full extent of the wealth Charles will inherit because, in the early 1970s, Queen Elizabeth instructed the government ministers to exempt the monarch from laws governing financial transparency, so we don't know about Charles large personal fortune exactly, but we know he won’t pay inheritance taxes on anything.
Monarch is also totally exempt from arrest, criminal or civil prosecution, so he can invest, launder, or take money from anyone in exchange for anything, and won’t get investigated. Or is he? Prince’s Trust honors-for-donations scandal anyone?
Charles is used to being the heir.
He’s used to being neutral, having mommy and daddy to lean on, never having to showcase true leadership. He never took any responsibility for the emotional damage he handed down to his sons. Conflict can happen in any family but to remove your son’s security and put his life in danger, having Harry resort to money his mother left him to make the safe exit showed Diana is a more useful parent, even in death.
His leadership style remains as it was before he came to the throne: leave a mess for others to pick up. He’s constantly leaving his sons to take the heat while he muddies people’s eyes with his cutting down the monarchy / environmentally conscious leader platitudes.
Ruby Baker holds out hope that the end will come with more of a bang than a whimper: “Hopefully, he will f--- it up and end it all.”
Since I began with Caitlin Flanagan, I simply must end with her, too:
“Will Charles—Boomer Zero—be able to keep hold not merely of the things but of the idea of England that his mother helped create?
Doubtful.”