Why Does Royalty Still Exist in the 21st Century?
Responding to this controversial incident, in which first lady Michelle Obama gave the Queen of England a brief hug, Robert Schlesinger writes: "Democracy has flourished around the globe in the last couple of decades, but we still worry about ... the Queen, hereditary monarch of England. (And that's not even to mention the royal princes running Saudi Arabia who have invested in them the unfortunate combination of silly tradition and actual power.)" Why does royalty still exist in the 21st century? Will it vanish by the 22nd century? If so, how will it meet its demise? Post your thoughts.
Previously: Is Obama's Cigarette Tax Wrong?
Reader Comments
Society & Royalty
THe concepts of brotherhood and equalty versus royalty and aristocracy have been a fact of life in society and civilization for humanity and the animal kingdom as well...and certainly will not change soon....our school systems are loaded with students who want tobe better educated than their parents or friends.....competition in sports and scholarship leads to excellence in achievement of goals and responsibilities.....royalty and aristocracy are not on the way out.....caste systems are obvious in all cultures and are necessary.....up to a point.......
Tabloids are God's Will
What are the best selling newspapers in the UK? Tabloids. What do the tabloids love to cover in nausiating detal? Royality (and of course sex, best when combined). Royality still exists to fill the tabloids and keep the peasants happy, or at least distracted.
Royalty is God's Will
Manifest Destiny and other religiously justified doctrines and dogma has helped to bring order to early civilization and to create stable governments to replace anarchy and warring tribes. While the concept, acceptance and practice of royalty appears somewhat archaic in modern times, it fulfills several functions among which are national pride, the need for common people to admire people who are better than the lot, the need to look up to authority (psychologically tied to parental models, etc.) and because most people are conditioned to identify with group think, culture, tradition and rituals. Where royalty is more symbolic than governance, why not? The Queen of England, the Emperor of Japan and King of Saudia Arabia add a civilized and respectful aura to their cultures. Where monarch actually rule, if they are benevolent as in Dubai, why not? Would we want to substitute political strife and all the other "isms" for a peaceful well-oiled functional nation under a monarch just because we want to force our twisted idea of democracy on other cultures and nations? In the extreme, democracy is similar to anarchy - mob rule. In it's republican form - democracy becomes the rule of the rich who control the minds of its seemingly mindless masses. Where is true free will? Only free-thinking individuals are capable of free will, not as a reaction to politics or culture but as an independently thoughtful process that assesses reality for its truths without color blinders of social norms and values. Otherwise, as a past Queen allegedly proclaimed... "Let them eat cake." Or as a past President (Reagan) had proclaimed -ketchup should be considered a food item in poverty programs for the poor. The reality is the poor and working masses prop up the wealthy - who historically in turn have used the masses for warfare, conquest, and pillaging. Little has changed except the names.
advertisement
