On the eve of a “royal wedding” between Prince William and Kate Middleton and movements toward democracy in the middle east, I began to ruminate on the efficacy of monarchies and aristocracies in modern societies. I have seen data pointing to the existence of about 50 royal families in the world – far more than I would have guessed. If countries wish to have them and pay for their security and upkeep, it is certainly their business to do so and I do not begrudge them their decision. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it really makes sense to adhere either to this form of government and the hereditary aristocracy it creates or to this form of class privilege in a modern society.
Although there are many arguments (and solid examples) in favor of benign dictatorships, there are just as many cogent arguments (and many more examples) demonstrating that absolute power corrupts absolutely. A monarchy (and accompanying nobility or aristocracy) does not necessarily imply such absolute power. For example, a constitutional monarchy as in Spain serves as Head of State but is not politically active. Nevertheless, a monarchy promotes privilege and it certainly perpetuates an inherited and almost certainly unearned (after a generation or two) class system. Moreover, if a society has a monarchy, but does not bestow on such a monarch some real executive powers, then it has many of the cons but none of the real benefits of an Executive Head of State who can make a decision without having to go to committee.
Since it is the Easter season, I feel it is appropriate to paraphrase scripture. The poor will always be with us. Class systems are bound to arise in societies whether or not they are based on ancestry, history and tradition or wealth, brains, skill, athleticism, good looks or luck. To a certain extent, nature and nurture will help perpetuate a class system. Successful people marrying successful people will tend to have more successful children over time. Parents naturally give their offspring every advantage they can. What sense does it possibly make to offer state sponsored hereditary privilege for even greater advantage?
It is very difficult to estimate the costs of maintaining a monarchy and a landed gentry in a modern society. In the United Kingdom, the BBC estimates the security costs alone for the royal wedding will run somewhere between 5 and 20 million pounds and perhaps over $300 million per year. It is equally difficult to estimate the benefits such as increased tourism as well. Would the UK really lose out much in tourism if the royal family were no longer “royal?” The UK’s deep, royal history would not disappear. The castles and country homes of the royals and the nobles are not going anywhere.
Indeed, what is this “history” that is being celebrated? Isn’t the genesis of royalty, the biggest, baddest chieftain (e.g. William the Conqueror, née Bastard) who decided that he would band together with some big thug, noble buddies and beat up on other lesser thugs who had land he wanted and declare himself the chief thug of the land. He would then parcel out the land to those thugs who were on the side of victory and tax it at a level where they would not complain too much but would instead throw their support behind “their” king. The king would then cement “alliances” by marrying members of his family to members of other important, noble families to keep them loyal by blood and take the sons of other noble families to the royal court for “education and training” so the king could keep these additional noble families in line. It is all wonderfully Machiavellian. So that’s the “history” tourists celebrate?
The poor will always be with us. Class will always be with us. Let’s not have the State pay for and perpetuate an outdated class system. Isn’t it time for royalty and nobility to exit quietly and gracefully?
