Royalty

I must have too much time on my hands. I've just finished reading another news story about the Royal Wedding, this one viewing with concern the allegation that President Obama has been royally snubbed. As usual, the on-line comments to the article were more irritating than the story itself. All the comments were irritating, in fact, regardless of the position the writers took -- I must be irritable this week -- but to me the most aggravating were those denouncing the British monarchy itself and demanding its abolition.

Let me be clear. I'm a monarchist. At least, I'm a monarchist on behalf of the United Kingdom, as well as, incidentally, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few bits and pieces of the former Empire.

Every nation needs something to tie its people together, something bigger than their collective sum, something to bind them collectively to their own history. We have our Constitution. We have our houses of Congress -- however much we deplore the performance of the members of those houses. We have our Supreme Court, with its over 200 years of precedential decisions. We have our White House, with its oft-studied history of occupants: good, bad, mediocre, and simply bizarre.

Britain has the monarchy. The kings and queens of England stretch back 945 years to the Norman Conquest, and -- in reality -- hundreds of years earlier, back to a time when "kings" were merely leaders of Germanic tribes. The line of monarchs has been broken only once, for a score of years under Oliver Cromwell. The experience wasn't pleasant, and hasn't been repeated.

I occasionally talk to Brits who wonder what it would be like to change to a republic. More democratic, they suspect. Less expensive. More like "normal" countries.

Fine. If they want to abolish the monarchy, they will in fact be more like other countries. A small, wet island with nice (if rather eccentric) citizens, a bad economy, some pretty (if unattended) cathedrals, and national football (soccer) teams that never seem to get very far in the World Cup play-offs. They will be another Austria or Sweden.

Being "normal" is vastly overrated.

If I were designing Britain from scratch, I probably wouldn't give it a queen as its head of state. But we take nations as we find them, with all their own historical experiences. The British monarchy recalls a glorious past, a lengthy past, a fascinating past -- Shakespearean in majesty and scope. The Crown with its historical associations brightens what would otherwise be a somewhat dim nation. I doubt that it costs the British taxpayer much more than the amounts other countries' taxpayers pay for trappings of sovereignty. In fact, the aristocracy and royal family derive much of their income from their own inherited landed estates -- estates that no one proposes confiscating.

I don't share the American press's fascination with every last detail of William and Kate's upcoming nuptials, but I'm quietly pleased that they're being celebrated. The occasional bit of British pageantry reminds us that our American brand of republicanism isn't the only form of government that ensures its citizens freedom and the right to be heard -- the same benefits also accrue to the subjects of this ancient constitutional monarchy. And Britain shows us that honoring an "elite" -- whether aristocratic, plutocratic or meritocratic -- is not incompatible with democracy.

So best wishes to the prince and his princess. And God Save the Queen.