Monarchy already lost its way by the time it adorned itself with gold, silver and diamonds. Nobility itself can be defined by one's ability to appropriate everything which is alien and dress it as virtue. The same ornamentation which adorns the bodies of royalty can be likened to the virtues adorning acts of violence lying at the heart of their dominion. The virtue of the sovereign says to the people, if nothing else, that what can be easily purchased cannot so easily be maintained but by the will of the people. The distance of foundation is not nearly as distant as the space between the sovereign and the people, however, in that distance is precisely where the will of the people resides. Monarchy relies on ritual insolvency-a cultural fragmentation which places its sureness in the fact that few people ever want to be king but those who have a shot at it. Royal scepters, robes and crowns were seen to possess, in a crude manner, divine energy itself, and were, if not prized by themselves, then prized as so many symbols of a power that was ultimately unearned but by one's simply having been in the right place at the right time. Contrast the kings of Europe with the tribal chiefs of North America and parts of Asia who rather than crowns wore headdresses-surely the fruits of their own labor. The difference between a tribal chief and a feudal king is the difference between reliance on a complacent populace and reliance on nothing (in the sense that Goethe, always setting out to possess himself fully, relied on no one else and was, thus, relied upon). What does a royal family have over a democracy, exactly, save a more potent symbol and explanation as to who is determining the direction of the movements they would otherwise have no choice but to make themselves?
It was inevitable that after blood was made sacred, dirt was next.