. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King
The whole idea that the accident of birth brings with it automatic wealth, privilege and status is such an idiotic notion and I can't believe that in this day and age we still subscribe to it.......
That topic probably deserves its own thread! But before a moderator zaps us back onto the topic of Camilla in this thread, I'll throw in my 2 cents!!!
As much as I am fascinated by monarchy and royalty as an institution (with all its associated glamour and trappings), I have often found myself wondering "But is it right that someone obtains their rank and position by hereditary accident? But then I look at the bigger picture.
Throughout history, In any society one small group always rises to become leaders - depending on the needs of the particular society. Among cavemen, those with the greatest physical strength became leaders. Later, those who proved to be the best warriors. Then, the ones able to lead armies. Later, those who were educated enough to be able to read and write. Then those who controlled the pillars of economy (first landowners, then industrial owners). Throughout all this, leaders of religions and churches also held sway.
Today, we have leaders in a variety of areas. Our elected politicans control our governments. Our chosen celebrities control our cultures. Our leaders of industry control our economies. And in that context, I believe monarchy serves its own role too. Royals no longer govern, they no longer control economies. But they do provide the personalification of a country's history and identity - to their own people and to the rest of the world. They are a cultural institution that continues with the generations.
In the United States we have always lacked that personification of our nation. Sure, we have a President - but his actions as Head of Government always overshadow his role as Head of State. When our President attend an event, it is always tinged with politics that overshadow the real purpose of the event. The job of the Vice President used to be pretty much ceremonial, going to funerals and inaugurations abroad, and attending other functions that the President wasn't available for. But how many people remember who the US VP was in, say, 1928? How about 1954? Nobody is very impressed with them.
In contrast, when Queen Elizabeth II, or the PoW, or the Crown Prince of Japan, attends an event, people sits up and notice - they pay attention and it brings a level of prestige and grandeur to the event. I recently read a story of when George VI and Queen Elizabeth openeded a war memorial during their 1938 tour of Canada and the US. Witnesses wrote that the old soliders from World War I respectfully parted to form lanes for the King and Queen to walk through, many with tears in their eyes at being so close to the royal couple. It meant so much to them.
Is that subjective and emotive reasoning for monarchy worth the cost? Well, that's for the people of the monarchies of the world to decide. In the end, tend to think it is.
