449

Opinion

A Dane Abroad: A monarchy that moved us
Kirsten Louise Pedersen

October 8th, 2022


This article is more than 2 years old.

What would the tourists do around lunchtime without this lot to follow? (photo: Pixabay)

Queen Elizabeth II died and, despite not being British, it felt like a significant moment. Evidently, it has moved a great many people around the world. Conversely, many feel that this is no significant event at all. So what does all this tell us?

Strongly symbolic
Monarchies symbolise tradition, establishment, the familiar and a not-to-be-underestimated sense of stability. Significant forces that many, openly or secretly, hang onto. But for others, the monarchy equals an outdated and superfluous institution with no place in modern times.

In the UK there seems to be a real feeling that ‘the great mother has died’, and that a great deal of stability, leadership and certainty has gone with her. 

This is not without significance as such a level of mourning would simply not be possible for a person whose role was merely outdated and superfluous. Whether one is a royalist or not, the British monarchy is clearly a symbol of reliable steadfastness for millions of people.

Assured stability
Current trends see various nations increasingly seeking their independence with a desire to reclaim what they believe is their true identity, shaking the ground on which many monarchies are built. Realms that were previously great are potentially about to get smaller. After many years of creating large realms and unions, a movement of detachment seems to be sweeping the globe. Nations are breaking up with one another.

The future will happen regardless, and it looks like the monarchies of the world are under real threat of annihilation. However, in a world where rapid change has become commonplace, one could ponder what will constitute an anchor of stability if the old ways and the old institutions are all to be demolished, however outdated they may appear?

Historically, people have always required something stable and unchanging to hold onto in order to feel peace and safety in their lives. That’s why traditions are largely upheld. The massive changes and subsequent demands for adaptability brought about by COVID-19 sweeping the Earth, have been, to say the least, stressful and destabilising for a great many people. 

The ‘gig economy’ – fast and fixed-term job projects replacing longer-term employment – has grown exponentially in recent years. This has created huge opportunities for flexibility and movement, yet stability and protection seem to have taken a downturn.

Steadiness over shiftiness 
The British Queen represented a constant, neutral and reliable leadership, which unlike many political leaders seemed to provide people with a sense of identity, stability and comfort. Despite some change being natural, too much and too rapid change can unsettle people, and people have always needed a leader. 

The steep global rise in mental health disorders gives away the apparent fact that millions of people are struggling in our current world. Change and stability are two opposing powers. Anyone who has tried will know the impossibility of achieving both at the same time. 

Whether you’re a fan of monarchies or not, ask yourself how easy it is to stay balanced when institutions symbolising steadiness and stability are torn down in the name of change, leaving us with no other leaders to lean on than shifty politicians with forever wobbly viewpoints? 

Maybe monarchies are outdated. Maybe they provide an unrecognised level of grounding. Maybe we needed Queen Elizabeth more than we knew, and only time will tell.

About

Kirsten Louise Pedersen

Born and raised in Denmark and a resident of New Zealand for over 14 years, Kirsten has lived a pretty nomadic life since her early 20s. A physiotherapist, yoga teacher and keen home cook, she is passionate about food, good living and natural health. Email her at kirstenlouise@protonmail.com


Share

Most popular

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive The Daily Post

















Latest Podcast

A survey carried out by Megafon for TV2 has found that 71 percent of parents have handed over children to daycare in spite of them being sick.

Moreover, 21 percent of those surveyed admitted to medicating their kids with paracetamol, such as Panodil, before sending them to school.

The FOLA parents’ organisation is shocked by the findings.

“I think it is absolutely crazy. It simply cannot be that a child goes to school sick and plays with lots of other children. Then we are faced with the fact that they will infect the whole institution,” said FOLA chair Signe Nielsen.

Pill pushers
At the Børnehuset daycare institution in Silkeborg a meeting was called where parents were implored not to bring their sick children to school.

At Børnehuset there are fears that parents prefer to pack their kids off with a pill without informing teachers.

“We occasionally have children who that they have had a pill for breakfast,” said headteacher Susanne Bødker. “You might think that it is a Panodil more than a vitamin pill, if it is a child who has just been sick, for example.”

Parents sick and tired
Parents, when confronted, often cite pressure at work as a reason for not being able to stay at home with their children.

Many declare that they simply cannot take another day off, as they are afraid of being fired.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, a professor of virology at KU, has heavily criticised the parents’ actions, describing the current situation as a “vicious circle”.

“It promotes the spread of viruses, and it adds momentum to a cycle where parents are pressured by high levels of sick-leave. If they then choose to send the children to daycare while they are still recovering, they keep the epidemic going in daycares, and this in turn puts a greater burden on the parents.”