What was the only merit of a woman named Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor to become the queen of her country?
Having been the first-born product of the conception of a sperm from Albert Frederick Arturo George, King George VI, and from the ovum of Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon.
That she later became a queen and fulfilled her role as sober head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is something else. How good for her subjects that the queen turned out good for them. It is true: it could have been a disaster like several of its predecessors of the British crown.
Choosing the sovereign of a country according to monarchical rules is a toss-up: maybe it works out, maybe it works out badly.
I, who am a republican and believe in meritocracy, find it anachronistic that in the 21st century monarchies continue to exist in liberal-democratic countries. (Dictatorial monarchies, where kings rule, are even more shocking to me).
Today it is presumed that Queen Elizabeth II always respected the constitutional rules of her country. More was missing! So what did they want? What breached them? It turns out that by making her her job to represent the United Kingdom, she lived… like a queen. She had palaces, fine furniture, collection paintings, servants, elegant cars, carriages, horses, guards and a long etcetera. That many of these assets were not owned by her but by her State? Well, yes, but who used them was her and her family.
How lucky for Isabel. She won the lottery just for being born. Then, “poor thing”, she had to prudently play her decorative role as head of state. She prohibited her from having her, and she fully complied, getting involved in government affairs and public policy. That was up to Parliament. She received credentials from foreign ambassadors, dined with leaders of other nations, and traveled to countries that were once part of the British Empire to see how villagers who had been her subjects danced. She too, the very poor, she had to deal with the headaches generated by the royal family, as dysfunctional as all of them.
The queen did not rule, but she did play an important political role. With much pomp and circumstance, she reproduced national symbols that also served to maintain the cultural dominance of the rank aristocracy she presided over.
That explains why the majority of Britons continue to support the monarchy. The propaganda apparatus works, and very well. So well, that in other countries, including Mexico, the death of Elizabeth II and the succession to the throne of her eldest son are closely followed. We love to see the pageantry. All the television stations in the world broadcast it because, it must be recognized, it is a great show. A real house that has always competed with Disney.
What is the only merit of the new King Carlos III?
Having been the firstborn of a sperm from Philip Mountbatten and an egg from Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, Queen Elizabeth II. Well, and let’s give credit to another merit: enduring decades for his mother to die at 96 years of age to reach the throne.
Fingers crossed Brits. The same and it turns out good Carlos, the same and no.
It’s a flip.
Ridiculous that in the 21st century monarchies continue to exist even though they are subordinate to plebeian rulers. It cannot be justified for someone to lead a country, even symbolically, just because of their genes (before they called them “blue blood”). Parliamentary regimes where the head of state is elected by the representatives of the people on merit and have a defined period of service are better. It is fairer for society and minimizes the possibility that the monarch is or becomes a cretin.
And, beware, I am not against the pomp and circumstance that all nations must have as part of their identity rituals. I don’t mind the carriage with dozens of steeds walking the sovereign’s coffin. What seems unsustainable to me is that the person who represents that nation, although he does not have government decision-making power, is because he was born to a certain father and mother at a precise moment in time. It is an archaic conception that must be overcome.
Parliament should choose its head of state from hundreds of prominent Britons out there. Better, for example, Paul McCartney, Mary Beard or Richard Branson, than Carlos whose only merit is being his mother’s son.
Long live the republics!
#monarchies