Dictators Go, Monarchs Stay

I am not a fan of American neoconservative Democracy projects, but this article by former Bush administration security adviser Elliott Abrams nevertheless makes good points comparing monarchies to republics in the Middle East.

Arab Monarchies Survive as Republics Falter

Thanks to my brother William Harvey, violin and viola teacher at the Afghanistan National Institute of Music, for calling my attention to this interesting New York Times discussion of The Staying Power of Arab Monarchies.  For a variety of reasons, the region's monarchies all appear likely to weather the "Arab Spring" unrest intact, while authoritarian republican regimes have fallen, with more potentially to follow.  What seems inescapable is the conclusion that within any particular cultural context, monarchies generally can offer their people more stability and hope than republics.

Royalty of the World at Windsor

Front row (L-R): HIM the Emperor of Japan, HM the Queen of the Netherlands, HM the Queen of Denmark, HM the King of the Hellenes, HM the King of Romania, HM the Queen of the United Kingdom, HM the King of Bulgarians, HM the Sultan of Brunei, HM the King of Sweden, HM the King of Swaziland, HSH the Prince of Liechtenstein.

Middle row (L-R): HSH the Prince of Monaco, HRH the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, HM the King of Lesotho, HM the King of the Belgians, HM the King of Norway, HH the Emir of Qatar, HM the King of Jordan, HM the King of Bahrain, HM the Yong di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia.

Back row (L-R): HH Prince Nasser Mohamed of Kuwait, HH the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, HRH the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, HM the King of Tonga, HRH the Crown Prince of Thailand, HRH Princess Lalla Meryem of Morocco, HRH Prince Mohammed bin Nayaf of Saudi Arabia.


Apparently that April 22 Telegraph article was much ado about nothing, as the former King of the Hellenes attended the Queen's Diamond Jubilee lunch after all, with no earth-shattering consequences, whatever Greek republicans say, resulting in a wonderful unique photograph (perhaps the most comprehensive ever taken) of most of the world's reigning monarchs.  Other members of the British royal family including the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge joined the Queen in welcoming this illustrious international assembly of royalty to Windsor Castle.  The absence of Queen Sofia and any representative of the royal families of Cambodia, Bhutan, and Oman is to be regretted, though monarchists can rejoice to see not only King Constantine but also the former kings of Romania and Bulgaria and the crown prince of Yugoslavia included.  Discussion however has been dominated by the presence of the controversial Kings of Bahrain and Swaziland, though I doubt most British people really mind nearly as much as noisy troublemakers apparently think they should.  Once again I say the Queen can invite who she likes; it's not as if democratic republican governments never host controversial republican heads of state!

Politicians spoil Jubilee lunch

Outrageously, advance coverage of what should be a glittering glamorous gathering of royalty at Windsor tomorrow is being dominated by partisan political posturing.  Despite earlier reports that Spain's Queen Sofia would attend Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee luncheon for international crowned heads, the Spanish government abruptly announced that she will not be going after all.  Misleading headlines suggested that this constituted a "snub" by Queen Sofia, but of course as the "Young Fogey" explains the rude decision was made by the Spanish Government, which reportedly "ordered" the Queen not to attend.  Nearly three hundred years after the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain is still perpetually and officially aggrieved by British possession of Gibraltar, whose inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, though a Spanish friend of mine believes the government's refusal to allow Queen Sofia (who surely would love to go if it were up to her) to travel to England tomorrow has more to do with finances than Gibraltar.  Either way, I am disgusted that mere politicians are able to prevent their Queen (herself a great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria) from attending a totally innocuous international family occasion celebrating the reign of her third cousin.  The Queen should be ordering them around, not the other way around!

As if that weren't bad enough, Queen Sofia's brother King Constantine II of Greece will not be attending either, to avoid offending the Greek government.  (As more than one wag on Facebook has commented, "what Greek government"?)  Unbelievably, Conservative [sic] Party chairman [sic] Baroness [sic] Warsi, trying to deflect criticism of the inclusion of the King of Bahrain, tried to claim that the guest list was the Queen's personal choice, flatly contradicted by reports from courtiers that if it were up to the Queen, of course King Constantine (her husband's first cousin once removed, and her grandson's godfather) would be attending.  I am sick of republican and crypto-republican politicians who think they have the right to boss royalty around and prevent them from attending functions whose sole purpose is to promote international understanding and good will.  I say to hell with the Greek government and to hell with the Spanish government!  Queen Sofia and King Constantine should go anyway, though of course they are far too polite to do so.  But I wish someone would tell these politicians exactly what they can do with their interference.

Middle East: Dictators fall, Monarchs endure

National Public Radio, not generally known as a bastion of monarchism, admits that in the Middle East, monarchies have weathered the "Arab Spring" wave of unrest significantly better than the region's authoritarian republics, and there are good reasons for that.

Monarchs Up, Presidents Down

The New York Times reports the encouraging news that the US government seems to have concluded that the unrest sweeping the Middle East is more likely to topple the region's presidents than its monarchs. One reason for this is that the monarchies have more legitimacy precisely because unlike authoritarian presidents they do not pretend to be "democratic." Another is that while not perfect the monarchies generally do a better job taking care of their people. What's particularly surprising is not so much that this is the case, but that the Obama administration has apparently recognized it. (Thanks to my brother William for calling my attention to this article.)