My funemployed status affords me the exceptional opportunity
to consider some of the great issues of the day. I rarely consider them
thoroughly, and even when I do I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I consider
them well, but I certainly do consider them. As you’re all well aware, the
issue du jour is the royal fetus, or more specifically, the possibility of
there being royal fetuses.
Some folks have taken this opportunity to debate issues of
trifling significance like the symbolic nature of a monarchy in what is nominally
a meritocratic society . While I suppose the minor minds of our time can
entertain themselves with questions of a strictly academic value I can’t help
but feel that this question really missing the boat on what should be an issue
of fundamental importance to all Canadians, what do we do if there are twins?
More specifically, how excellently would that opportunity allow us to address
the anti-meritocratic nature of constitutional monarchies?
I’ve heard rumour that in the instance of there being two
royal fetuses that eventually become two royal babies the official heir would
be the one that is born first. How much more arbitrary can we make the
directing of God’s divine will than by depriving a potential monarch of their
birthright over a few mere seconds? I
think that allowing a first past the cervix approach to the inheritance of
entire British Empire is a sub-par method for choosing God’s chosen. In lieu of
this antiquated method I have a perfectly reasonable—and undeniably meritocratic—ways
to determine the future heir to the crown of Great Britain and its Commonwealth.
The Hunger Games Method
Having recently watched the movie with my family, however, I
can safely say that I am a PhD level mind in the universe of…whatever universe the Hunger Games is in. With that in mind, I feel like I am most ably positioned to provide
guidance in the uniquely challenging instance of the royal uterus “doubling
down” on the whole provision on an heir thing.
In essence, method one is built around the notion that the
monarch most able to guide the British Empire back to prominence is the one
willing to fight for it, literally. Before you turn up your nose I would point
out that we basically use the royal family as a multinational reality
television show already, and NFL/UFC/Vice-Presidential Debate ratings more or
less disprove your “violence is bad and socially unacceptable” objection. As we
all know, might is right and popularity is tantamount to moral legitimacy, that’s
why Kanye West and Drake are more or less the modern day Popes.
My proposal is that in year 2031—assuming the world isn’t a
nuclear wasteland where we have kids fighting each other for fun anyway— we
have the two royal snotty teenagers fight each other to the death in a
needlessly elaborate, televised, grudge match. Admittedly, this is a difficult
to stomach option for our soft 2012 eyes and ears, but I suspect that the
population that suffers through the impending octuple-dip recession will be a
much hardier folk with a greater preference for pragmatism in lieu of mollycoddling
weakness .
It will certainly be difficult for the anti-monarchists
among us to argue that the crown was passed on to the next generation unearned.
We also have almost 15 years of documented proof that the winners of reality tv
events are veritable living Gods in the arena of public opinion. Who doesn’t
remember Richard Hatch, Boston Rob, whoever won one of the Big Brothers?
Truly, we would have the leader we need, and deserve.
No comments:
Post a Comment