May 2, 2007
Presidents and Monarchs Posted by John Steele Gordon at 06:05 PM EST I agree with Alexander Burns that we are not likely to agree on the British monarchy. On this subject, I think partially with my heart; he, it seems, only with his brain. Fortunately it is not up to us. It is up to the people of the U.K. and the queen’s other realms and territories. In theory she is Dei Gratia Regina. In fact, of course, she is Populesque Britannicus Gratia Regina. (My apologies if I have screwed up the Latin. Gaul wasn’t Caesar’s only conquest; he did a pretty good job on me 50 years ago.) The British monarchy is, paradoxically enough, a democratic institution. But a few points. Buckingham Palace is not maintained with public monies, but with the gate receipts of people who pay to see the various royal palaces. I wonder how much they would fall off if Windsor Castle were inhabited by the former minister for sewers and drains who had been kicked upstairs instead of by the queen of England with all the magic of that title. Bring in a Presidency and the British taxpayers might well find themselves worse off. Royalty, after all, is great for tourism. I did not say I agreed with the argument that royalty does not choose its status and therefore is under no obligation to behave well. They can always renounce their royal status, after all, and live ordinary lives. None do so, of course. No fools they. Mr. Burns writes, “It seems to me that the royal family can either be embodiments of their nation’s spirit or flawed, philandering elites—but not both.” I disagree. I think Mr. Burns might be a little more forgiving, as perfection is hard to come by. Both princes and Presidents are made of the same stuff, human clay, and therefore are equally miserable sinners. Presidents have often failed to embody the nation’s spirit. Is Jimmy Carter—that sanctimonious, humorless, anti-Semitic, Arab-money-grubbing hypocrite—the embodiment of America’s spirit? I certainly hope not. John F. Kennedy was a major-league philanderer, but he did a great job of embodying the nation’s spirit. Charles I so failed to do that job he ended up about eight inches shorter (and he was none too tall to start with). Edward VII philandered as much as JFK, and the British people loved him anyway. Way back when (in 1980, if you insist on knowing) I wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times proving—scientifically!—that a monarchical system is superior to a presidential one. I recommend it, here, to all who do not find the sheer meta-scientific magic of royalty sufficient.
|
