On Why I Became a Royalist

IN SEARCH OF THAT POMP The glory that was the medieval times  

THE LIKES OF PHILIPPINE SENATOR Antonio Trillanes should be applauded. Not because he is causing “havoc” upon the seemingly uncontested administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, but because he is exercising democracy to its unnerving point. This is what democracy is all about. You may not like it (I’m sure of that), especially when you’re rooting for Duterte, but that’s just the way it is: confrontational, disrespectful at times, and downright divisive.

But I’ll have none of that in here. I just wanted the kings or the dukes to take over. Politics is straight up problematic and hopeless, so why not bring in the pomp and prestige that goes with a royal ruling before we plunge headlong into ignominious shame?

If I can help it, I don’t want to be a part of conventional politics anymore. These supposed political rifts are just exercises in futility and watching these (committee) hearings make you all the more apathetic towards our government. The alternative, though, with these royal family affairs, one is given a much more interesting take on how the country is governed, instead of listening to these commoners, all arguing about blood money.

So I decided to become a Royalist for two reasons: I wanted to retain the “fantasy” involved in a medieval ruling. And second, there's art in chivalry and the revival of it seemed like a noble thing to do. Make no mistake, though, there is something hopeful when you go royal with your beliefs. Besides, there is so much ugliness going on in our society that we could use a king or a queen leading or at least entertaining us from the quagmire of this dog-eat-dog system. Game of Thrones is hitting a unique nerve to its viewers in that aside from its risqué element, the concept of a royalist form of government is, I think, more brave and stimulating than a politician fucking the entire country.

If that loud Trillanes questions that medieval sort of leadership, for instance, particularly questioning the moral ascendancy of that king, I doubt if he would live to see another day. There may be pomp, there may some sumptuous food or some lavish parties every time a king is at the helm, but when it comes to erring subjects, like a Trillanes, the resolution might be that quick.

But Trillanes’ act proves that politics is just a sham. So why not go with the ultimate sham there is, a royalist dispensation because in it there is no reason for us to throw gripes at our government as its nature is already superficial and hell-bent empty right from the get-go. All we need to do really is savor the sophistication of their costumes and wonder at the delicacy of their disposition in public, a respite, nonetheless, from our wretched and cruel lives out of the tirades of these politicians who act as if they have this royal birthright attached to their mandate?

Why not we go all the way with it? At least, from a royalist standpoint, your hypocrisy as a ruler is elevated into a delicate undertaking, and not as a means of attacking a party or stealing from your subjects like a traditional politician, while hiding under a façade of in aid of legislation.

Life is already hard, so why complicate it with something opportunistic and insensitive like politics. To use the words of Steve Buscemi’s character in Armageddon, “I’m trying to have some fun before I die!” We should have listened to Imelda Marcos, in the first place.

photo: commons.wikimedia.org