The Bill of Identity

Or how to come out as royal

and

Feb 23, 2024

The following open letter addresses the German Self-Determination Act. Although based on laudable intentions, it does have a few oddities or identity traps that are humorously pointed out. This form of legislation is not unique to Germany, but is globally en vogue (or should one say: en woke?). In any case, more than 15 countries, from Botswana to the United Kingdom, have come up with similar legislation. In the case of Germany, the underlying message is how the notion of self-determination, which applies to Nation-State sovereignty is now interpreted as a form of Individual Sovereignty. This allows Heintz 57 to finally achieve what he has longed for all his life – getting special, Royally Special.

We Royal Children

An open letter to Ministers Paus and Buschmann regarding the Self-Determination Act

Dear Honored Minister Ms. Paus;

Dear Honored Minister Dr. Buschmann,

A small caveat first: the sender of this open letter has been highly reticent regarding public statements of this kind, either because our need for day-to-day political intervention has not been fully developed or because our comments are often perceived as a view from the ivory tower. Now, however, we are feeling encouraged by your self-determination law to undertake my coming out, all the more so because we see ourselves as being on the plus side of the LGBTQ+ discourse. First, we would like to pay you tribute for venturing into this territory. Who, in God's name, would ever dispute the idea of self-determination, especially when it's combined with tolerance and the desire to make amends for past injustices? This list alone brings so many positive points together that any objections would only be petty. However, Lessing himself has already remarked altruism should be a constant quality and shouldn't escape the soul suddenly. Sustainability, isn't it? That's what matters! You, my dear Ms. Paus, can empathize with this. After all, you've studied for a staggering nine years - and thus demonstrated true stamina, the determination essential in the fight for a defensible democracy against the Reichsbürger! And as you have painfully experienced, people can be wrong - and today's knowledge can certainly be a helpful guide. Hence, this letter solely aims to distill your noble project down to its intellectual core. So - to the point!

My modest case focuses on two letters regarding my gender that don't appear in any sequence so far but which, if taken seriously, give the law of self-determination a new, more precise meaning. So let's start with the shameful revelation, to which the epithet of coming out has been added, perhaps a little too triumphalistically - but which in reality goes back to a highly embarrassing story. Although I came from a profoundly bourgeois background, I grew up looking at a family tree in which Charlemagne was at the top - and me, as the second-born, at the bottom. Now, my father, to whom this work of art goes back, was a clergyman - but for some reason, he was struck with a nobility complex, which led him to devote himself to our genealogical research. In my childish mind, viewing the family tree daily has nurtured the inner conviction that I belong to the Royal gender - and that my personal pronoun is, therefore, Their Majesty, gender-fluid and politically correct. Unfortunately, although the blue-blooded can look back on an honorable history, this R is not included in the list of possible genders - but because the propagandists of the trans, struck with great wisdom, have added a + to their list, you will surely agree with us this fragile identity must also be an asset worth protecting - all the more so as we, for ourselves at least, can claim a form of multiple intersectionalities: gender-fluid, royal, banker-suspect, vicar's kid. As an examplary: Just think what a fatal impression it makes on an unsuspecting pastor's child if it is greeted at school from on high, with the saying: Miller's cattle and the pastor's child rarely or never thrive! - to call this remark racist would be an understatement; if anything, it should be called bestial, all the more so as it tarnishes an immaculate family tree…but enough of that. We would be satisfied if people would respect our royal gender and henceforth address us as Your Majesty, a formula of devotion which, especially when it comes from your mouth, would heal all the wounds I remember enduring from my school days. Now, as I said, it's not entirely clear to us whether our royal gender covers the entire range of our nature - or whether there isn't something else still lurking. If I've tried my hand at alien logic as a theorist, it's because something in me is deeply convinced I belong to an extraterrestrial species - the kind of extra-terrestrial cultural creators that Erich von Däniken has already spoken about in detail. That is why it could happen that, after declaring our membership of the royal family at the residents' registration office, I will also declare myself alien the following year, thus adding an A to my designation. I must confess: The possibility of such a change of position is truly an ingenious trick - and it seems to me your entire life experience has gone into it. Be who thou wilt be! The journey is the destination! And as you can see, we appreciate your contribution's moral flexibility.

Adding a few drops of bitterness to your brew makes it all the more difficult for me. Let us assume that a more unworthy contemporary would like to follow my exemplary and register their royal lineage. And because man desires heaven – no, because it is man's kingdom, we will do them the favor and address them with the preferred pronoun. So far, so good. However, your passage of the law, under Section 13, contains a so-called prohibition of revelation, which states:

If a person's sex and first name have been changed in accordance with Section Two, the sex and first name registered prior to the change may not be disclosed or researched without the person's consent.

In other words, Our Majesty could feel offended if any subject were to think of questioning the registration of a royal gender - by pointing out, for example, that John Doe comes from the Sticks and has previously belonged to the male gender. Consequently, the offended majesty could feel obliged to report the person concerned for undermining the ban on disclosure - which, as we understand the law, is an administrative offense and can be punished with a "fine of up to ten thousand euros," according to Section 14. For our part, I can assure you, we would never dare to make such a report - but I am not sure whether a contemporary who understands the strategic advantage of such a presumptuous offer would be similarly generous. Quite the opposite! Being bold gets you further! All of this leads me to a conclusion that seems to have escaped your notice, perhaps because of your good intentions. What your bill does is that it grants every human being a form of sovereignty that only Their Majesty has ever been able to claim - and only on the premise that they act as God's representative on earth. Of course, you might recall your predecessor, Heiko Maas, pushed through his Network Enforcement Act concerning data sovereignty (and Carl Schmitt), but I am afraid that doesn't improve things. De facto, you have conjured up a lèse-majesté paragraph in the legal code - with the result that anyone can now think they are royalty and accuse any fellow citizen of lèse-majesté, a section that is not only not conducive to legal peace but which can be misunderstood as an incitement to civil war (which may have been one reason why the privilege of self-determination granted by you only applies in the event of peace, while according to Section nine for the duration of a state of tension or defense, the official assignment to the male gender remains. But let's leave aside such nitpicking and get to the heart of the argument. Our Majesty wants to go one step further to expose the pulsating absurdity here. For if women can turn their personal truth into a legal title and enforce it with the help of the judiciary, they find themselves in that privileged position we have so far only granted to the central bank: The issuance of their personal truth, which forces contemporaries to accept it as legal tender: Not that we I am not tempted in wishing my BURCKHARDT a wider circulation, but that everyone should enjoy such a privilege does conflict with my royal claim to exclusivity. I will concede in your favor that you, filled with the noble mission, have not thought through the implications of your proposed law. Shit happens! And who would want to break the baton over you? What I find remarkable, however, is none of your chambers seems to have a mind trained in legal philosophy that spells out the socio-political consequences of your lèse-majesté insult paragraph – namely, the fact that you are thus descending back into the depths of the empire and the Reichsbürger-nuisance, right in the middle! The regrettable absence of an adult has brought to my attention a comment by Talleyrand, which he made about an action by Napoleon (and which anticipates what the honorable Carlo M. Cipolla wanted to turn into the science of Stupidology): ‘it was worse than a crime, it was a stupidity.’