The British monarchy has indeed fared better than many of its continental counterparts, but the evidence of monarchy itself being outdated and antiquated institution is readily demonstrable with cartography.
Imagine maps of Europe in 1822, 1922 and 2022 showing the parts of the continent under monarchy in a single color. In 1822, only Switzerland solidly stands out like some lone island in a sea of royal blue stretching from Iberia to Siberia. In 1922, royal blue is confined to most of the Balkans and along the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts (excepting Portugal, and France). By 2022, the enduring remnants of royal blue are confined to the map's western fringes.
The new King's desire to refresh, trim and modernize is likely due to his own keen awareness that the institution, where it survives in the West, is a ceremonial relic in the blurry backdrop of people's busy lives. The monarchy is no longer necessary for modern everyday life to go on much as it has heretofore.
Since you want to expand your insistence on "antiquated" and "outdated" beyond Great Britain - then expand it around the globe too. On all six continents, you will find the concept, presence and validity of monarchy in a wide variety of cultures, histories and circumstances all being valued for its historic and cultural value, and the sense of historic identity it continues. By the same wider measure across the world, look into some modern-day "republics" in Africa or Asia, large or small - be it Nigeria, Ghama, South Africa, India and much more - where there continues monarchical tradition, be it kings or chieftains. As to the wider European continent? Like any human or geographic family, each country has its own history that affects the ultimate outcome of monarchy there. Emerging eastern European states - importing German princes in 19th century did not have much time to establish a solid foundation and connection before world wars came along, and much else by way of dictators, communism to displace it. Interestingly too, the peoples of this region were by and large never given an opportunity to vote on the issue of the monarchy in the early post-communist period. France and Italy? The former, as I said, has as deep a connection to the monarchical concept as the UK, the problem again being that Capetian dynasts could not evolve into the 19th century and were still clinging to notions of "God's law before man's law" by insisting that Spanish Borbons were still "plus ainee" claimants to a non-existent throne. But the British monarchy endures exactly because it does manage to both move in time and still reflect its identity of a legacy going back into the mists of time. You might find nothing meaningful or relevant in that, but I would say that many of us always will.
268
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index