Celebrities Are Not Our Rulers

We are all guilty, at times, of being lazy in our terminology, making statements that upon further analysis cannot possibly be true.  These can take the form of perfectly innocent, if exaggerated, turns of phrase, such as saying that I “hate” chili peppers, when the truth is that of course I cannot possibly hate a plant.  However sometimes these exaggerations provide us with an opportunity to take a step back, question what is being said, and further question the person who is making such an exaggeration as to whether they are worthy of our time, attention, and trust.

Yesterday for example, I read a newspaper article reporting that actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are now engaged to be married.  The article quoted a Hollywood gossip columnist, who breathlessly declared that this wedding was going to be a “state occasion”, the equivalent of the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton last year in the UK.  While it is plainly obvious that this is not the case, it is worth taking apart this rather idiotic observation to see what we can learn from it.

A marriage between two movie stars, however glamorous they may be, is not a state occasion.  This is an incontrovertible fact, for the simple reason that they are not sitting heads of state, nor the offspring of sitting heads of state who are themselves in line to rule someday.  Referring to the impending nuptials of entertainers as a “state occasion” betrays either a profound ignorance of what exactly a “state occasion” is, or demonstrates an intellectual and social laziness that should be corrected.  It is similar to the way that the press often refers to a popular starlet as a “princess”, when in truth she looks more like a member of another profession which starts with the same letter.

The hyperbolic ignorance of much of the so-called mainstream media when it comes to anything beyond a basic reporting of facts, and sometimes not even then, would be laughable if it did not so often cheapen us all.  Anyone who is a fellow Catholic for example, knows how appallingly bad the coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI was on virtually every news network.  It became clear very early on that most of the reporters covering the news, as well as the commentators called to share their opinions about what was taking place, had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

A “state occasion” is something far more important than a social event, such as a wedding between two celebrities, and even if the wedding is a state occasion, whether in the case of last year’s royal wedding, or that of Prince Ranier and Grace Kelly, and so on.  It has to do with both the present personification and the future preservation of a country, in a way which has legal, political and diplomatic importance.  It is understandable that among people who do not remember their history or civics classes in high school that there may be some forgetfulness as to what various terms having to do with forms of government actually mean.  However the press, which holds itself out to be so much better-educated and sophisticated than most mere mortals, ought to avoid making or repeating pronouncements which not only betray ignorance, but provide a false impression to the public.

There is no question that we have always had a kind of organic aristocracy in this country, such as the Virginia planter families in the 17th and 18th centuries, or the New York robber barons in the 19th and early 20th.  However, these are not titled people who are always going to be entitled to some deference because of who their ancestors are.  Otherwise journalist Anderson Cooper, who is a Vanderbilt, would not be interviewing cast members from “The Real Housewives” train wrecks.  Yet these people are not heads of state, simply because they are well-known, or wealthy, or what have you.

The head of state serves as the visible representative of a country, whatever form its government happens to take, and exercises functions on behalf of that country.  While something of a generalization, admittedly, for the purpose of a brief blog post, there is a symbolic importance to the actions of a head of state as acting on behalf of all of the people.  Remember that unlike in the Mother Country, in the United States we do not separate the functions of head of state and head of the government.  In this country, the President of the United States serves both functions; in Britain, the Queen and the Prime Minister have different responsibilities.

In Britain, Prince William is the grandson of the present head of state, and will someday be the head of state himself, according to the laws of that country. His wedding was, therefore, a state occasion.  Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie may be interesting, even powerful people, but they do not represent the United States in any official, constitutional capacity  – and thank goodness for that, if it is not too misanthropic of me to say so.  While it may appear something of a tempest in a teapot to get worked up about the marriage of “Brangelina” – [shudder] – being referred to as a “state occasion”, the truth is that these things do matter.  When we bandy about words in a casual fashion, we not only cheapen the language as a whole, but we also cheapen the meaning of those specific words we are using incorrectly, as well.

What is particularly interesting about the characterization of the Pitt-Jolie nuptials, innocent as such a characterization may ultimately be, as something approaching the dynastic and legal significance of a British royal wedding, is what it tells us about ourselves.  It displays a rather disturbing attitude toward celebrity which has already brought us quite low as a culture, and seeks to diminish us even further unless we push back against it.   We should all be happy that, after years of cohabitation, this influential and popular pair has decided to formally tie the knot.  Yet however momentous that occasion is for them and for their family and friends, holding it up as being an event of national importance is but another sign that our society needs to refocus its cultural priorities away from the flashy, and toward the substantial.

“State Opening of Parliament with Queen Victoria” by Joseph Nash (1851)
Houses of Parliament, London

2 thoughts on “Celebrities Are Not Our Rulers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s