Who Really Needs a Monarchy, Anyway?

by Javier Castillo
17 May 2004

won't bother with the pretense that I know anything substantial about European monarchies, or any other kingdoms, principalities or commonwealths. I've never studied (or cared) about royal genealogies or wondered what will happen to the Bourbon dynasty in Spain if the impending marriage of Crown Prince Felipe and Letizia Ortiz fails to produce a male heir. Oh, the horror of it all should that not happen!

No, European monarchies don't appeal to me and up to now, I've never really thought much about them. Being an American, we consider that type of thing quintessentially European and quaint, even though the number of "People" magazine covers and special issues about Princess Diana were enough to attest that there's a big market for that topic here. But I have been thinking about lately, mostly because of the aforementioned marriage of Prince Felipe to Leticia Ortiz. Spain apparently loves its monarchy, although the country is officially designated a constitutional monarchy. And it certainly doesn't hurt that Prince Felipe is an extremely good-looking man, not to mention that the future princess is quite the looker as well. They're both young and appealing and along with the recent nuptials of Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark, they're supposed to be the new face of European royalty.

Quite frankly, though, I think monarchies should go. All of them. They are archaic institutions harkening to all sorts of glorious pasts that were often steeped in human misery. War, war and more war accompanied various dynasties, along with the exploitation of numerous cultures and a re-molding of indigenous peoples along the (class) lines of Europe. No, I won't launch into a tirade about the evils of colonialism and imperialism any more than I've alluded to, but monarchies do represent that past and I don't think they represent the future. Or at least, they shouldn't.

Yes, yes, I know that virtually all European monarchies are of the constitutional kind, which means that democratization must be working across the Old World. But if these societies are evolving in their democratic and republican tendencies — and if the European Union is any indication — then how are modern monarchies supposed to survive? What function do they truly serve? If the first argument is that monarchies in country X are just figureheads and a reminder of the country's past, I'd say that slavery is also part of most countries' pasts, but you don't see a limited form of the institution still existing. It's been abolished because it no longer belongs as part of the modern state. And as glorious as the imperial past of Britain or France might be, I often wonder how impacted the public feels by knowing they have a titular head of state who got the job because his father was king. (Not to mention how much public money goes to support the monarchy, but that depends on what country you're talking about.)

I am not advocating a violent insurrection to overthrow existing monarchies; I'm just questioning how long they will be allowed to continue before everyone realizes that these archaic institutions belong in a museum, in books and documentaries, but not as part of a functioning democratic or republican state. Or maybe I should ask how long it will be until people begin to lose their deep need for authoritarian figures, or to stop believing that "royal houses" are symbols of the country. I don't know, I'd think that a constitution, or the condition of justice in a society is a much better barometer than addressing some as "your majesty" or "your royal highness."

And there's the final rub: in a world of increasing connectivity and democracy (no matter how stumbling both may be), do we really need these reminders of the ultimate class distinction? Remember that is was the Spaniards who gave us the phrase "blue blood" (sangre azul), re-establishing the demarcation between Us and Them. Nowadays, there's a certain fad among European royalty for marrying commoners: Prince Felipe's "prometida" is a commoner and a divorcee (still a stigma in Catholic Spain?) Prince Frederik ("you can call me Fred") marries an Australian women he met in a bar — who said romance was dead? Yet all this re-aligning of finding domestic partners among the blue bloods of Europe still doesn't undermine how needless and anti-democratic monarchies are. They serve no purpose and centuries of bloodletting and warring should have proven that societies are better off without them.

We should not be applauding the changing face of royalty in Europe with rich kids marrying for love instead of for political alliances and ambitions. We should be counting the days for the final demise of a reactionary and archaic institution that has no place in a democratic world. Except for in historical dramas, and even then, they should all speak with a British accent.