I am certainly not a pro-monarchy individual, but this strikes me as a strange take. Like it or not, Charles III is the head of a State that everyone recognizes as such, and has special status.
There's a difference between him being the "Head of State" of his country, and having to bow-n-scrape, kiss the ring, etc. I think that is the essence of what others, including myself, are specifically pointing out and commenting on. It's definitely the basis for my prior comment.
The same applies for all the other monarchies in Europe. I am always surprised that people talk about the “UK joining the XXI century” but forget that Europe has 10+ monarchies, and that the world has about 45 countries with a monarch as head of state; that’s almost 25% of nations. Often people also forget what a mess it would be to change form of government, especially if it’s currently working somehow.
The British Isles' form of government absolutely
has changed over the centuries. In fact, who the UK is has radically changed just within Elizabeth II's own lifetime. So, as far as "messing with" it is concerned, that ship has already sailed.
The respect that Charles would and should get should be the same respect that any other foreign head of state should have, and that’s of course in virtue of his office not of his person.
Americans tend to think that if their form of government (which I do love) isn’t the form of a foreign country, then the country has a problem (which also paves the way for the “export democracy” BS). That’s not true. In the vast majority of cases, forms of government and who is the head of such state/government, either comes as an organic development of the country or a revolution (which often is an organic development, just abruptly applied). Obviously this development is never without serious bumps, but when it works the result is precisely the result of the country solving a problem.
Thinking that whoever holds the office - especially if mostly symbolic as a constitutional guard - is either “behind the times” or “like any other person” is an insult to the history and character of a nation (of course that doesn’t mean that the policies and politics of such person/country deserve automatic respect).
Mostly what you're referring to here has a name. It's called "ethnocentrism". I've been
very keenly aware of it for quite some time, though in my case it would take going to college and taking an Intro to Cultural Anthropology class to know it was a formalized concept with a name. I absolutely take your point about "exporting democracy". Anybody who's studied history — or just simply read Noam Chomsky — can see the perils there.
Vis a vis your comment on "behind the times", I don't believe it's anybody's place but the British people, and the peoples of the various different members of the Commonwealth, to decide what's best for them. Personally, my preference would be for a republic, but that's just my
preference.
And that’s precisely why Americans tend to suck in understanding foreign policy and cultures. Yes, mine is an abominable generalization, but after 20 years here and several facepalm moments while talking to people, that’s my conclusion. The rhetoric by some around the Queen’s death just confirmed it.
Nuances here are vital.
That “just a figurehead” is the symbol - in its highest meaning of the word - of the country. Its history, its battles, its deaths, its ups and downs, its ideals, everything is there. Diminish its status and you’re diminishing everything else, including the actual government in charge of policies and treaties.
Look at the U.S.'s history. We have *always* been a geographically isolated nation. Once we were strong enough to stand on our own two feet, we've been a mostly culturally isolated nation. The U.S. has done a great many amazing things, and attained levels of economic, political, and military success the likes of which the world had never seen before. Unfortunately, what ultimately came of that is believing our own advertising. Speaking
as an American I know full well how hard it can be to try and discuss international affairs with the "average person on the street" because they don't have the education or the exposure to elsewhere to have any opinion other than what they are given by, in essence, their fellow country-women and men. Statistically, Americans are the least well-traveled people of any first world nation.
Our Monarch is there as head of state to make sure those corrupt politicians don’t get too much power and say. There’s plenty of people in this country that want to abolish the Monarchy and that’s fine, but I’m glad there is a wider understanding as to why it is important to our constitution that they exist. I am glad our Royal family are not elected which would be a bit weird in itself to be fair. Our electorate have a pretty poor history of voting for the right people and at least the Royal line is stable and consistent in its service to the people.
If everything I've been seeing and reading lately is anything to go by, the first sentence in this paragraph is factually wrong. The monarchy is evidently required to remain strictly a-political, and anything, even just commenting on the most obvious and not even publicly disagree-upon thing, had been construed as political and potentially "constitutional crisis"-inducing. By
that measure, Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III, King William, etc., etc., aren't supposed to do anything about anything.
So, honestly, if
that is correct, I don't see how they can do anything about corrupt politicians.
Also if that's correct, I therefore don't see any point in having them around. But, again, I'll go back to what I said above: it's the British people's place to decide what kind of government to have.
www.bbc.com
