Why royalty never caught on here
We’re not going to elect a king this November. Royal titles are a worthless hangover from the Middle Ages, which should have been put in the dust bin of history centuries ago.
But if you were even close to a TV in May 2023, you know England celebrated the coronation of King Charles. The streets in London were packed with folks who came to see the pageantry.
Royals pop up daily in the media; a few years ago, Queen Elizabeth of England made an announcement that the wife of Charles, Prince of Wales (who is now king) should be known as Queen Consort. Recently I noticed an article about Meghan Markle, now Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, who is married to Prince Harry. He’s fifth in line to the throne.
Most kings and queens are holdovers from when their predecessors actually had power. Today, they are at best expensive tourist attractions. Royalty is still in vogue in many places around the world where folks fawn over those with titles.
In England there are so-called royal watchers, who post something online every time a royal sneezes. As royals marry and have kids, there are more and more titles, most of which carry about as much weight as Vertis, Duchess of Smackover or Prince Richard of Norphlet. Yes, that sounds stupid, but I think Duchess Vertis carries more stroke than most of the royals who make the gossip columns, since Duchess Vertis actually produces something for society and is not a drain on the economy.
All those titles are a carryover from the time when kings or queens had the power to say “Off-with-hishead!” and it would come off. Today, though, most royals have very little to do with running a country. Many of us ignore them, considering them figureheads who aren’t causing any trouble.
On the surface that sounds plausible, but royals are not free. The British royal family costs the taxpayers at least 345 million pounds a year (around $439 million U.S. dollars) according to a recent Internet posting. In U.S. dollars, the small country of Monaco spends $54 million, Luxembourg $12 million and Spain $9 million annual to pay for royals.
But let’s be fair. The pomp and circumstance produced by a queen or king with no power seems to be a great tourist attraction. Could all the attention and money dedicated to King Charles’ coronation be better used improving the lives of the average citizen in England and around the world? I think it could have been.
But it’s not just Europe; some of our closest allies in the Middle East, such as King Salman bin Abdulazziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, is the head of state/government. The Sultanate of Oman, a hereditary position, is head of state, head of government, supreme commander of the armed forces and prime minister. So much for our supporting non-democratic potentates.
Internet sources show there are 36 constitutional monarchs, three absolute monarchs, and one absolute theocracy (Pope Francis).
What if England did away with royalty? Would that make several hundred poor souls homeless? Hardly. The former queen of England not only lived in a palace, but owned real estate all over the country. The queen seemed to be a nice lady, but don’t you think all that money could be put to better use?
In the very beginning, our country was made up of British colonies, and King George held sway. There were those who called themselves Royalists, supporters of England and King George. They were a minority during the Revolutionary War, and when the colonies won, there were some who pushed to keep several English traditions, including royals.
One of the accomplishments of George Washington was that he absolutely refused to consider the concept and allow himself to become King George of America. And the writers of our Constitution made sure that there would never be an absolute royal figure, but an elected one, and we would have an elected Congress.
The Constitution writers put in enough safeguards to be certain no president or army general could ever hold the title of supreme ruler. So when you vote for president this fall, King Donald or King Joe won’t be on the ballot.