Is the writing on the wall for all European royals?
|
Version 0 of 1. King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted "kings don't abdicate, they die in their sleep''. But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is in its death throes? Is the writing on the wall for all European royals, with their Ruritanian uniforms and gilded lifestyles? The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was in the aftermath of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above "mere" politics and "embody" a spirit of national unity. Juan Carlos undoubtedly played a key role in steering Spain from dictatorship to democracy, and was an influential defender of the new constitution during a military challenge in 1981. It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs' continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow electorates to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure. Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history – and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states. The cultural gap between aristocratic royals and a more democratic populace was a major cause of Juan Carlos's fall. A century ago, hunting elephants in Botswana accompanied by a lady who was not one's wife would have been entirely normal – even expected – behaviour for a self-respecting monarch. But in 2012 it looked arrogant and out-of-touch, particularly at a time of economic crisis. And it is this insensitivity, together with a financial scandal involving his daughter, that forced this particular king to abdicate in the interests of his dynasty's survival. The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image. Europe's monarchies will no doubt be canny enough to survive for some time to come, but it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example. So far, the British monarchy has clung doggedly to its flummery, and the princes have military careers and play polo. It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy's reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style – a bit stuffy, maybe, but not snooty. The danger will come with Charles, who like Juan Carlos, has expensive tastes. He also seems to have a pretty hierarchical view of the world – as revealed in 2003 when he complained that modern education was encouraging people to aspire to positions beyond their "natural ability". But, more seriously for the British royal family, Charles has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and apolitical heads of state. His efforts to influence government ministers though his secret "black-spider letters" (which the Guardian is seeking to make public) do more for republicanism than thousands of anti-monarchy petitions. As the Juan Carlos case shows, opinion can turn against royals very quickly. The British monarchy experienced a similar crisis when the public saw it as cold and aloof after the death of Princess Diana. And Charles would do well to remember the fate of his namesake, Charles I. There were very few republicans in 1649, but the regicides decided that they could not trust Charles; he therefore could not be allowed to abdicate or die in his bed, but had to be executed. As English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy's worst enemies. |