The King is Dead
I'm not entirely convinced on the throne model.
All the new-age talk on Kings and Queens leaves me queasy.
Even though there are many people I respect, admire and value who use these archetypical explorations... I've never personally felt comfortable with this particular archetype beyond being in a balanced relationship with the other archetypes of warrior, magician and lover.
I think archetypically of all the tyranny and manipulation that encompasses a game of thrones when Kings and Queens are at play.
The show itself paints the picture of what happens within this bloodfest as characters sometimes outright, and other times deviously, slaughter each other just to secure the rule. Why? Why this intense drive to rule?
I am drawn to a different archetype, the archetype of the sovereign villager. The husband. The wife.
Braveheart shows the power of the husband turned warrior.
Tragically in the end he is destroyed by tyranny and subterfuge, and his beginning was borne of rape and death.
Yet he lived, breathed and fought for freedom, and love. Without remorse. Without regret. Without being shaken one iota from his integrity.
He is part of a collective, a band of warriors and beyond. Held together by bonds much deeper than rule.
I cannot help but continue to question, in all the discussions of the kings and queens, what is the impulse to rule? And what and who does that rule serve?
Theoretically Kings and Queens are supposed to rule kingdoms with an immense amount of responsibility for their peoples. In service of the people that they ruled over.
Realistically they were nothing more than self-serving, selfish aristocrats. Their power and rule built upon the backs of others. Taking what is truly not theirs simply by the assertion of rule and the power of force - the sword at the throat.
They squeezed, and continue to squeeze (in their modern day forms) the people, forcing them like ants in servitude to the Queen in a sadly naive yet not consciously consensual parasitic relationship.
I am not sure there is any true way a king or queen can justify their rule. Ever.
Now that does not mean I do not agree with the discussion of value and production. When industry is applied in a way that betters the plight of the common man and woman, that produces elements of value and thus continues the turning of the wheel of evolution - then this is absolutely afforded the rewards given... for they are not taken, they are earned.
Then the power is not in rule, but in influence.
Influence ideally proportional to the degree by which one provides value to the community, and the greater collective, and ideally to the cosmos itself.
Without this ethical temperance to the greater good, we will only find ourselves in tragedy after tragedy. Resource depletion and scarcity. Slavery and it's modern day equivalents. Where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle get deluded into thinking that the accumulation of stuff and experiences means their life is a good one.
Influence comes with responsibility. Responsibility towards those who have not yet developed their influence, their sovereignty. It does not exploit their lack of sovereignty, it seeks to enhance it. It seeks to create enough space for all, which there truly is if we functioned collectively.
Without this responsibility there is only tyranny and parasitism.
Taking without truly giving.
Me and mine.
Fuck the rest.
The King is dead. The King should not live again.