Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have essentially resigned from their duties as British Royals . The Duke and Duchess of Sussex—remember, Harry is one of Price William’s backups, likely to become King, if ever, in his dotage, if at all, and only if some catastrophe befalls his his brother’s offspring. The couple announced on Instagram yesterday,
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen. It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment. We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages. This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity. We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”
What this means is a matter of great debate, but whatever it means, it’s unethical.
Prince Harry and Meghan are members of the Royal family, who are ridiculously compensated by British taxpayers to be living flags and cultural icons of Great Britain’s days of glory long past. That’s what they are. Being members of the Royal Family are their only claim to celebrity and significance, and, to Americans and anyone else who isn’t confused, that’s one wan claim at best. The Windsors are neither especially bright nor accomplished, though Harry’s great grandfather, the last King George, did play a part in helping to defeat Hitler in World War II, and his grandmother, the apparently immortal Queen Elizabeth II has done a respectable job assisting in Great Britain’s decline from a world power to nation whose status outweighs its power and influence.
For senior members of British royalty to declare that they will be “progressive” royals is like a Pope announcing that he’s going to be a swinger. The Royal Family isn’t progressive by definition; it’s anachronistic. It can’t be progressive, because the only progressive approach to the Royals is to jettison them, say goodby and thanks for fish and chips, and add their vast wealth to the national treasury to pay for national health care for a few years.
If that’s what this pair wants to accept on their own, that’s fine—but it isn’t. They basically are writing their own rules. According to the law, they can’t earn their own keep. Under the current structure and financing arrangements applying to them, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form., including in their charitable work. Their website states,
“…they have made the choice to become members of the Royal Family with financial independence. Their Royal Highnesses feel this new approach will enable them to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen, while having the future financial autonomy to work externally. While the contribution from The Sovereign Grant covers just five percent of costs for The Duke and Duchess and is specifically used for their official office expense, Their Royal Highnesses prefer to release this financial tie.”
What the couple do not say is that they apparently still will receive 95% of their current income, which flows from The Duchy of Cornwall, the private estate established by Edward III in 1337. “The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family,” the official Duchy of Cornwall site states. “The Duchy consists of around 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England. The principal activity of the Duchy is the sustainable, commercial management of its land and properties. The Duchy also has a financial investment portfolio.” The Prince of Wales (that is, soon to be King Price Charles, Harry’s father) holds all of this, and so far, there is no indication that Harry will be cut off, or that that he and Meghan will voluntarily give it up.
So”becoming financially independent” specifically means the Duke and Duchess will no longer receive funding through the taxpayer funded Sovereign Grant, which comes from British taxpayers. Essentially, they are saying that they will no longer do the work of the Royal Family as their primary pursuits, and will do whatever woke and progressive damn thing they feel like…but they still will be compensated.
So far, the reaction of Buckingham Palace. which was apparently blindsided by the announcement, is “not so fast.” It said in a statement, “Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
In an ominous sign, Harry and Meghan’s wax figures were removed from Madam Tussaud’s.
“Megxit”—Good one!— comes of recklessly assuming that mixing cultures will just magically pan out, and a mess was wholly predictable. The last time a senior Royal married an American woman, it resulted in King Edward abdicating (this turned out to be lucky break for Great Britain and the world, since he was a Nazi sympathizer, and his brother turned out to be one of the smart Windsors . Markle was a U.S. actress and C-list celebrity, and was a good bet to find the values and duties of the Royal Family a drag, man. Having wrapped Harry around her little finger, her prompting something like this was near inevitable.
And it was wrong. It you accept the role of a princess, then you do what is expected of a princess. You become part of an institution, and your obligation is to strengthen the institution, not to set out to wreck it. Brendon O’Neill, editor of the British commentary site Spiked, accurately (and acidly) writes of the Harry and Meghan rebellion,
What it fundamentally reveals is the incompatibility of the modern culture of narcissism with the values of duty, loyalty and self-negation traditionally associated with royal life. To someone like Meghan, who sprang from celebville, who sees herself as the embodiment of right-on goodness, and who loves nothing more than advertising her eco-virtue and performing her PC credentials, life in the British monarchy was never going to be a good fit.
Bingo. She should have known it, and Harry, if he wasn’t dim, should have known it.
O’Neill goes on…
[W]here the woke value the self over everything else, senior royals are meant, ostensibly at least, to be selfless, to submerge the self into the crown. It looks like this is a deal-breaker for the younger, more celebrity-oriented royals, especially newcomer Meghan but also Harry, too. Their unprecedented ‘stepping back’, and the fury this has allegedly caused in the Palace, suggests the cult of the self that Meghan and other showily virtuous celebs embody and promote, does not work within an institution whose ideal is the Queen: opinion-free, emotions hidden, dutiful, unquestioning and in it for the long haul.
I’m just reading the Spiked! piece as a I write this: the author is scoring Bingos all over the place. Let me defer to him (read the whole thing):
Duty is anathema to a new generation whose chief goal is often self-realisation. Any notion of collapsing the self into something bigger than oneself, something more historic or something collective, is alien to many in the selfie-taking, values-performing generation….They sound more like Kendall Jenner talking about her adverts with Pepsi than individuals who are meant to devote themselves for life to royal duty and the preservation of the crown….Harry and Meghan haven’t been driven out by racism or prejudice or hatred. Rather, they’re ducking out of their own accord so that they can go even more global, more woke, more famously, internationally, irritatingly PC. They’re going to become even more insufferable. And here’s the thing: they will trade on their still existing royal titles to do so. So Meghan spent a couple of years in the royal family and now is pretty much leaving it while holding on to the duchess / princess thing in order to give her naff feminism and eco-posturing and celeb shoulder-rubbing more oomph? I’ll say it again: abolish the monarchy…
And their self-promoting stunt may well speed that result along. I certainly won’t be sorry if it does—wistful, perhaps, but not sorry. Markle is being compared to Yoko Ono in some places, but the Beatles were contributing something of value to the world, and Yoko didn’t accept terms she had no intention of fulfilling. The adventures of Harry and Meghan from here on promise to be entertaining at least, especially if they end up doing Disney commercials to pay for their jets to climate change conferences.
Sources: Marie Claire 1, 2; Spiked!
You can post a link to this article to Facebook in replies to other posts and comment, or use this Twitter link in a main post: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1215431152460337152
27 thoughts on ““Megxit,” A Royal Ethics Mess That The Brits Should Have Seen Coming”
If Meghan was going to break up the British Monarchy could she not have chosen a more thematic reason? Maybe like trying to turn all of the back to Catholicism?
Mrs. OB, an expert on all things Royal, like all American women of Princess Diana’s age group, informed me Harry is no longer even a spare. William and Kate’s children are next in line if Charles and William were to buy the Duchy.
Right! I’ll fix that.
Voice over: “Harry and Meghan, where are you going?”
Harry and Meghan, in unison: “We’re going to Disneyland!”
Anyone remember when Prince Harry wore that Nazi uniform replica at some party. I never forgot and still think it was weird.
These two do seem to embody all the things we blame Millennials for. We’ll see what happens next, but it’s time at least for the Brits to stop paying (socialist) royalty welfare taxes.
“Anyone remember when Prince Harry wore that Nazi uniform replica at some party. ”
I must admit I find the kerfuffle over that to be ridiculous.
It was a BAD TASTE party. Everyone went in ‘bad taste’ outfits/personas, and Harry nailed it – obviously!
Hmmm. A royal at a bad taste party? In a Nazi uniform no less. Bad taste indeed.
I think, if you’re a British prince, you need to have your ethics alarms ring at certian “bad taste” options.
Well, perhaps they can be a new Disneyland attraction. I probably won’t go to see them as I dislike crowds but maybe the increased revenue to be used to fix up some of the shoddier sections of Anaheim.
Admitting up front that I know very little about the Royal family, the statement from Harry and Meghan sounds (below the surface) roughly equivalent to a child telling his/her parents, “I’m leaving the house and I want you to stay out of my life. I’ll “collaborate” with you when it benefits me, but otherwise, leave me alone. Oh, and I still want my allowance.”
Do I hit near the mark?
And it’s a really, really nice allowance.
Yeah, that’s about it. And the maturity level of the average Royal fits…
It’s a tax dodge. Their child is a US citizen, so would have to report his share of the royal assets and income.
Having a financial split so all assets are in their personal names or held by trusts in tax havens, is necessary due to US tax laws. Otherwise crown assets would have to be revealed and significant taxes paid. Possibly Trillions with a T in inheritance taxes alone.-
Not performing public duties removes the need for reimbursement of expenses from the crown list, the subsidy the government pays the royal family to perform such duties, and for the upkeep of such public assets as Wndsor Castle and Buckingham Palace.
The royal family have ridiculous amounts of assets. Most producing only a small amount – a couple of billion of income. They also have to spend an eyewatering amount on upkeep of things like the crown jewels, which they own personally, but are not permitted to use except as the government dictates.
Love it. Thanks, ZB.
I couldn’t care less about British royalty. Isn’t that one thing of which we were rid by the Revolution?
I once had respect for Prince Harry, after all, he was a combat veteran who served his country and appeared to be on his way to becoming a good strong public leader in the mold of Lord Mountbatten or Edward the Duke of Kent. That respect is diminished today.
The last time a British royal married an American (Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry twice-divorced Wallis Simpson) it was an utter disaster for him and for the monarchy (they had to ship them off to the Bahamas during WW2 to avoid them embarrassing the nation, where they had the nerve to demand money to upgrade the residence there while the Blitz was in full swing). This time, not so, because he is not the sovereign, only the brother of the sovereign to be, and is probably looking another decade minimum before his brother the Duke of Cambridge assumes the throne so, if not two.
As an American, the idea that one particular family is that much more special than the rest of us simply by accident of birth is a foreign one. Some of our best leaders (Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman) have been born into relative poverty or certainly less than rich circumstances. As an anglophile, I understand that the house of Windsor is still widely loved and looked to as a stabilizing influence as nonpartisan heads of state. As an intelligent person, it is pretty clear to me what is going on here.
Like his great-granduncle before him, and like many other fundamentally decent but weak men, Harry is letting himself be bossed around by a wife he is blinded with the to the point of letting it affect his judgment. In ordinary society that might not matter too much, but in the Royal family, and on the national stage, he is supposed to be a leader. For two years he’s been letting Meghan lead him around by the nose (or other parts), everyone knows it, and most don’t like it. I also think Meghan thought she was going to breeze in, say “this ain’t your daddy’s Royal family anymore, ” shake things up because she was half black and just that hip and that cool, and become another Michelle Obama, but better because her husband wasn’t term limited.
Unfortunately, the wife of the sixth in line for the throne doesn’t command anything like the weight of the sovereign, or the wives of either of the direct heirs. She found that out rather quickly, and, rather than trying to fit in, tried to bully her way around (at one point making Kate so angry during a dress fitting that she burst into tears and had to duck out to compose herself). When that didn’t work, she drove a wedge between her husband and his brother, who, like it or not, will one day be his king.
Now she’s finally persuaded her husband to quit his role, and hopes to keep the lifestyle and the celebrity without any of the restrictions. What’s more, she announced it before anyone told the Queen, the Prince of Wales, or the Duke of Cambridge (10 minutes doesn’t count as notice). That was no mistake, and a deliberate snub to them. Even in an ordinary family that’s not advisable. She wanted to say “screw you old bunch of tradition-bound fogeys, Harry and I are going to do our own thing and become greater than you can ever hope!” Unfortunately, some traditions ARE in fact too strong to buck, even in this day of female fighter pilots and boys marrying boys.
I predict it lasts about 3 years before Harry grows tired of her narcissistic ways and joins most of his house in the divorced club, and she goes back to acting, trying to trade on her title.
“Markle is being compared to YOKO” At the least, the boudoir photo will should be more aesthetical and pleasing to the eye
Can’t disagree more. If you accept a role in an institution you are not always obligated to support it in every way. If the activity of an institution strongly unethical, then I think it’s perfectly ethical to join that institution with the intent of stopping the unethical actions of that institution.
Royalty is inherently unethical. It fundamentally violates the basic ethical principles (laws in the science sense) that all men are created equal and all men deserve equal benefit of law (in the legal sense). Royals are not equal. Royals have legally entitled powers as a result of birth, not as a result of equal benefit of law. Royalty is to slavery as socialism is to fascism. Just two sides of one fucked up coin. The same fundamental violations of ethics, specifically the inequality of man and the resulting unequal weight of law, are used for the same purpose. To unethically elevate one group over another. They differ only in that spread and depth. Slavery, goes wide and shallow, and takes a large percentage of the population and elevates them a ways above the non-slaves. Royalty, goes narrow and deep, and takes a small percentage of the population and elevates them well above the non-royals. Royalty is an unjust and evil practice in the modern day and I’m happy that Megan’s American understanding of this unethical power structure (even if only via her subconscious) is taking shots at the unethical practices of her new family.
The Queen is an asshole – she routinely uses her powers large and small in outrageously dictatorial ways. I’ll give two examples that really get me steamed up. First when in 1975 she just waved her hands and dismissed the entirety of the ethically and democratically elected Australian parliament. Read that again. Australian citizen went to the polls and said “these are the people we choose to representing us!” and then the Queen just said, in her Royal way, “No”. She did it because the Australian parliment was in a budget negotiation deadlock. Whoppty frickin do. Can you imagine if we had to dismiss the house and senate every time there was s budget spat? Let alone if we had to dismiss them at the whim of a foreign ruler. Dear god, the outrage. If you want something more modern and arguably even more outrageous, she dictated a moratorium to the UK parliament that prevented them from talking about going to war in Iraq. Bill 35 in the 1998/1999 Parliamentary session. They. Weren’t. Allowed. To. Talk. Read that again. The people of the UK elected their MPs to discuss and act on important issues of the day, and once again the Queen said “Nah”. They weren’t even allowed to debate it. Can you imagine if the president was able to stop the house and senate from debating event talking about a bill? The mind boggles at the fundamental ethics violations. Truly, I’m embarrassed that our cultural brothers and sisters across the British Commonwealth take this on the chin. I wont get too detailed, but the small stuff bothers me too. For example, the Queen doesn’t have a passport. She just shows up places and expects to be let in – she can’t be bothered to have her picture on a piece of a paper and go through the hassle of carrying that truly onerous weight around when visiting foreign countries. To this day, the entirety of the armed forces, police, and Parliament swear loyalty to the Crown and exercise whatever powers they have in her name. “Sure, but like, she ca’t really do anything” my English friend says while completely missing the point that the core legal foundation of his nation’s law and use of force is banking on a soft dictator that won’t push things too far. Even if that’s only in name and not practice, it’s an undeniably wrong state of affairs for any people who understand basic ethics and the rights and freedoms they bring about.
The least unethical monarchs are those of the mainland European countries. I recall a Spanish king who basically just lives
The more the British monarchy and it’s attendant House of Lords falls the happier I’ll be and bless that Megan woman for chipping away at the ethically bankrupt practice.
Some closing notes that I’ve run out of time to develop properly (remember I try to limit myself to one hours sprints otherwise I’d be here all day and nothing would get done):
– I really do have an English friend that I talk to often, that’s not a rhetorical flourish. It’s a big reason why I know more about the UK government and it’s happening than the average person in the UK. He is, like most of his country men, willfully blind to the ethical reality of the Monarchy. In his lifetime, it hasn’t really caused that many problems and its unlikely to in future lifetimes and they’ve grown up with it their whole lives and don’t really care enough to change it – no matter how obviously wrong it is.
– One of my favorite conversational tricks, after I’ve won some intimacy and buy-in from my cocktail chat circle, is to tell everyone how much of an asshole the queen is using these examples. People are universally flabbergasted. I also like arguing that by the numbers Nikelback is the second most influential foreign band in US history right after the Beatles or that Gaston, in the original Disney cartoon, is inarguably the good guy. My significant other is proper tired of these subjects.
– I honestly think a big reason why the Commonwealth takes this on the chin is because the modern understanding on the evils of Monarchy are relatively recent and before they became universally accepted, most of the hard nails fight-and-die for-the-people-of-my-country types were killed in the back to back world wars. It’s hard to maintain a population with a spine when that spine is thoroughly broken over back to back generations. As a thought experiment, if there were a huge war tomorrow, everyone who signed up for that war the next day would be the constituent members of that spine. People with the education, belief system, and values that it takes to be willing to fight the hard fight and die for something greater. What happens when most of those people die? Who’s left to pass on that belief system to the next generation? Only the hand full that survive and the people who never really believed in it in the first place. Small wonder that America’s large population and comparatively mild casualty percentages produced a people who are still willing to fight and die on principle (one need look no further than American volunteers fighting Isis with the Kurds or things like the Abraham Lincoln Brigades or the Israeli airforce) while in the UK you can get police escorts of of small towns simply because they don’t like what you believe or that you can be lawfully arrested for expressing your opinions in public places and nobody bats an eye.
So you think Mrakle married into the Royal Family intending to bring it down? She isn’t qualified to make that determination: she’s from a different culture. It is, in fact, unethical to impose yourself on a foreign culture with the intention of wrecking it. She’s not a scholar, a Brit, a philosopher or an ethicist: she has no authority or perspective to call the British system “unethical.” It’s worked well, the public likes it—who is she to decide it’s wrong?
Youre basically saying that she’s wrong to fight monarchy because she’s unqualified? Bull, we’re treading universal rights and wrongs right now. You don’t need to be anything more than sensible to see that monarchy is wrong – plain as day. It’s why pretty much every nation on earth has cast it aside (most violently). She’s plenty qualified to pull her own family out of that practice. If she can get the rest to collapse too, then kudos to her, but that’s probably a bridge too far.
Nonsense. RP. She sets out to reform another nation’s culture? What does she know? Who is she to target Great Britain? You think every individual in the world is ethically entitled to pick any nation he or she likes and set out to screw it up to their own desires? Where could you even get a crazy idea like that? I’m aghast.
Never mind the fact that this almost certainly isn’t what Markle did. She accepted what she thought was a cushy gig, found it was more trouble than she expected, and bailed. Nice. You’re concocting a rationalization for her, and it isn’t even a good rationalization! I look forward to Price Charles cutting them off, and watching her and her weenie hubby hawk Preparation H and Sprint.
I am going to say I think it is fine for them to resign from the royal family, but only if they REALLY resign. Give up all peerages, titles, and land that goes along with it. Become commoners and get jobs. Be banished from Great Britain (because that seems to be part of the deal of doing this) and banned from interfering in Crown and government affairs (no lobbyist positions for you). Get a job. I actually would respect Harry for doing that. I think he would be really sorry for it, but he is an adult and should be allowed to make tragic life choices for himself.
Unsurprisingly, the NYT editorial board disagrees with you:
Good for Meghan and Harry
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are right to blaze their own trail.
“… the couple’s decision to withdraw from the Firm should not come as a surprise, though it appeared to be just that to the queen and the heir apparent, Prince Charles. Reared in the tradition of monarchy as the symbol and mainstay of the nation, they have stoically carried on in their duties even as their world, and their family, has been battered by the winds of change, discontent and scandal, as dramatized in the Netflix series “The Crown.” Evidently they expected the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to do just that, and to rear children who would as well.
But the real value of the royal family has never been in cutting ribbons and proving endless fodder for the tabloids; it has been in the continuing saga of fairy tale kings and queens coming to terms with the world. In this story, Prince Harry and Meghan should not be lamented as defectors from the old order, but celebrated as the heroes of the next installment, as modern royals renouncing some level of privilege to seek their fortune in the real world. May they live happily ever after.”
Oh, and this was the same “newspaper of record” that saw fit to, on the same opinion page, give John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry several column inches to explain the errors and dangers of President Trump’s actions regarding Iran. You may draw your own conclusions.
Red Pill Ethics writes:
You explain American revolutionary ideology, of course, and this is fitting: you are American. Yet your revolutionary praxis, that reaches far and wide and penetrates all spheres, has had and is having all manner of different consequences that can be examined critically.
When I read what you have written, and when I examine it for *ideological predicates*, not so much to demonstrate that I am personally opposed to them (I am uncertain in so many areas what to *support* and what to *shun*), but rather as an exercise in seeing and understanding how people’s ideas are informed and how these ideas affect the world, I believe that I see ‘progressive ideology’ in motion.
I am beginning to think that the term ‘American Conservative’ is a complete contradiction of terms! (note that I have no idea how you define yourself politically and socially, I only refer to ‘conservatism’ because the blog is populated by people who (seem to) define themselves through conservatism). It is not possible for a bona fide American to be a conservative at the same time. If we take conservative to mean ‘he who conserves something’.
I find your use of the word ‘unethical’ revealing. Surely you must notice — don’t you? — that you have taken possession of ethics when you are certain that you can define what is, and what is not, ethical? A few short years ago (a couple of hundred years) it could not have been *seen* and was not an article of perception that a monarchy is ‘inherently unethical’. Back in Shakespeare’s time the idea of fixed social hierarchies was closely connected to the way the Universe was understood to be constructed & ordered.
Though it might appear that I am somehow *advocating* for monarchy and for older conceptions of hierarchy, this is not so. What I am noticing is what happens, on a wide scale, when “when degree is shaked, which is the ladder to all high designs, then enterprise is sick!” and “Take but degree away, untune that string, and, hark, what discord follows!”
What I notice, or believe that I notice, is that the undermining impetus which attacks and pulls down all hierarchies, is a dog that eventually eats itself!
So, in the present instance, a Prince who should be acting in a proper way to accord with his princely position — if even we consider the British Monarchy to have some vestige of a ‘metaphysical role’ within a society advancing rapidly toward *unraveling* and *undoing* — marries the most common of possible Commoners! and violates “the primogenitive and due of birth” in the most grotesque and ugly way. This does not have to do with Markle’s goodness/lack of goodness as a person, but rather — and only — that the Prince with a “prerogative of age, crown, sceptres, laurels” has deliberately invited in an element that can only break the structure further apart! It is really actually a pretty simple point.
Now what is even more interesting is to notice in our own culture and in our own times how people — people who like you claim to *possess* and to control ethical definitions — turn against their own selves in the mirror way. That is to say they turn against their own ‘whiteness’, against their own ‘Europeanness’, against their own traditions, and essentially against the *order* of which they are a part and which invested them with selfhood.
Here is an alternative vision:
That Prince should never ever have married that woman! The Prince should have become an example to his people, against the progressive currents of the age, by marrying a person of equal & established rank. Then he should have outprinced any prince of recent princeness by re-investing princedom with genuine princicity. That is by seeing himself, and acting, as God’s emissary in the social & political here-below. He should have firmly established himself and his own soul in deliberate Christian terms, which means of course to respect a Heavenly Hierarchy and ultimately ‘the King of Heaven’.
He should have inspired his people not to allow the monarchical idea to further erode, but to have reestablished what it means — what it can mean and what it should mean — by assisting in a process of ‘recovering England’ from its dissolution. The place is being overrun with Muslims and there is no place in a Christian society for Muslim factions given the basic — and necessary — antipathies. So, he should really have done the unthinkable by demonstrating some level of alliance with those struggling, and suffering activists who are trying to draw attention to this problem.
You see, his problem began with his *whorish* mother — I am sorry to put it like this but it is true. She should never ever have carried on as she did. She did no good and a tremendous amount of harm.
But this is how things do when one examines *degenerating structures*. The ride down is chaotic brutal disturbing embarrassing and no one seems to recognize that they are merely going down: pulled by forces they do not understand.
The larger meaning here is of course that ‘progressivism’ is destroying America. It is a meat-grinder. It is a dog that turns on itself. What is needed is some force & power that halts the movement. But the *avenue* to that eventuality is completely closed because progressivism controls every square meter of ‘available real estate’. You cannot think outside of the terms it sets.
To define a non-emasculated conservatism . . . is a very difficult thing!
This line will go down in history:
Then he should have outprinced any prince of recent princeness by re-investing princedom with genuine princicity.
Feel free to use it, with proper attribution of course! 🙂