The State of
the Kingdoms
Is the 21st Century the Last
Century for Monarchy?

By Andrew Chang



March 1 — Shortly before he was forced from power in 1952, Egypt's last king remarked, "There will soon be only five kings left — the kings of England, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades and Clubs."


A half-century later, Farouk I's prediction may seem off the mark — but not by much.
Of the roughly 200 countries in the world, only about two dozen remain monarchies. It's a far cry from the 19th-century, when kings and nobles were the dominant form of government.

The 20th century was the era of the common man, and it was also the era of republics, when most of the world's nations moved to vest supreme power into the hands of citizens and their vote.

Monarchies are increasingly being looked upon as anachronisms. But they vary so widely in characterization that it's hardly possible to determine whether any of those remaining can or will disappear.

They exist in places as familiar as Spain and as far away as Samoa in the South Pacific.

They are also a part of countries as isolated as Bhutan, the "hermit kingdom" atop the Himalayas and as cosmopolitan as Belgium, headquarters for NATO and the European Union.

There are also differences in the nature of monarchies and the degree to which rulers hold power: Some are absolute monarchs, others share power in constitutional monarchies, and still others are mere ornaments of state.

The Future of the House of Windsor

Britain, host to the world's most famous royals, is a constitutional monarchy. There's little question that the House of Windsor has lost much of its luster since the death in 1997 of Princess Diana.

But Diana and her troubled marriage to Prince Charles weren't the only causes of the downward spiral. The antics of "Fergie," now ex-wife of Prince Andrew, provided plenty of fodder for the tabloids. And the steady stream of gossip continues. Britons speculate on the future of Charles and longtime love Camilla Parker Bowles. Prince Edward and his wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex, have raised questions about whether royals can pursue outside careers without creating conflicts of interest.

Amid the scandals, more and more people have also come to question the fiscal rationale for supporting a royal family.

Yet a poll cited by the London-based Economist says only one in five Britons would call for the abolition of the monarchy.

"There is no danger of monarchy in Britain disappearing," said Ronald Linker, a retired professor of history at Penn State University.

The royals are the living embodiment of "history of the nation," he said. "As far as all educated people are concerned, they know the monarchy represents who they are."

Britons regard their monarchy very much like the way Americans regard their flag, said Celia Sandys, a granddaughter of Winston Churchill and author of Churchill: Wanted Dead Or Alive.

"It's not individuals we're talking about, it's an institution," she said.

As an example of the affinity most Britons retain for their royal family, Linker cited the crowds who gathered at memorials for Princess Margaret, who died last month at 71. Sandys noted that Australians held an acrimonious debate in 1999 on whether or not to dump the queen, but eventually voted to keep the monarchy.

Linker dismissed the scandals surrounding the Windsors as a "media invention."

"This is absurd," he said. "This is trying to put these people at the same level as Madonna."


Drifting Toward Republicanism

Others, however, are less sanguine.

"We're having the last days of the House of Windsor," said Michael Cole, a former Buckingham Palace correspondent for the British Broadcasting Corp.

Sentiment for the monarchy has been steadily decreasing, and the country in general has been drifting toward republicanism, he said.

"Tony Blair is creating a presidential style of premiership," he said. While older people still have an affinity for the royals, young people are largely indifferent, Cole said.

They would much rather be citizens than subjects, he said.

Cole blames some of this dwindling enthusiasm as what he sees as Queen Elizabeth II's failure to adapt to the changing needs of her people.

"The queen has been fantastically unimaginative," he said.

Cole acknowledged that the royal family is also a major tourist attraction, and one of the most recognizable aspects of Britain. But he observed that people still visit St. Petersburg, even though Russia's czars have long since departed.

He also noted that the British royals have not put up much of a fight over recent attempts to limit their power.

Still, he conceded, "It would take a huge upheaval for the monarchy to be supplanted."

Some Model Families

Britain's self-examination is hardly unique. Similar scandals have wracked Europe's other monarchies.

In the Netherlands, the crown prince caused a stir by marrying the daughter of a minister in Argentina's former military junta.

In Norway, a similar storm occurred when the future king married a single mother who had borne a son to a convicted drug felon.

And in Spain, controversy was averted, but just barely, when Crown Prince Felipe broke off a long relationship with a Norwegian underwear model.

The question among many people has become, "Why have a royal family at all, when they behave like commoners?"

But the acting like commoners can also be a recipe for popularity, even when it comes to one of the world's most venerated monarchies, Japan's Chrysanthemum Throne.

Japan's imperial family claims an unbroken line to the country's mythical past, and enjoy even greater popularity than the British royal family.

But Japan's royals are hardly as much of a tourist attraction as the Windsors are, nor do they surround themselves with as much pomp and circumstance, or media attention.

In fact, said Amanda Seaman, a professor at Randolph Macon College in Virginia, they serve as an "epitome of the model middle-class family."

It's a much different dynamic than the British royal family, she said.

When Crown Princess Masako gave birth to a daughter last December, after eight years of marriage, she reminded Japanese women that they also could have a child later in life — to help raise the country's declining birth rates.

The Japanese imperial family has also consistently projected an image of frugality, experts said.

Kenneth Ruoff, author of The People's Emperor, recalls once seeing a "lifestyles" show on the princess when she was pregnant. The program noted that the princess' maternity dress could be re-cut and recycled after the birth.

"They are also pretty adept at changing with the times," he said.

The monarchy is mostly ornamental, but it does have a symbolic value that is exalted by many rightists. Most of the calls for abolition come from those concerned about links to the vicious Japanese imperialism of the 1930s and '40s.

Absolute Powers

The one area where monarchs are less subject to the whims of the people is the Middle East.

Most of the monarchs there rule traditionally, claiming divine right and reigning with near-absolute power.

The kings of Morocco and Jordan say they are part of the lineage of the prophet Mohammed. Saudi Arabia's House of Saud says it has traditionally been the guardian of the holy sites of Islam.

Rami Khouri, an internationally syndicated political columnist based in Amman, Jordan, said that among the world's monarchies, these would be the most likely to next move to republicanism.

The more a country is economically developed, the more money people have, the more they will want to take part in decisions that influence their fate, he said.

"That's what happened in Europe," he said.

But Khouri added that it was "not an automatic thing that monarchies have to disappear." The power of the monarchs in the Middle East is based upon their ability to affect things like education and quality of life, he said.

If they could not satisfy their constituents, they would not be in power, he said. "There's a kind of built-in accountability."

Going Either Way

Ironically, monarchies are even gaining popularity in areas of the world that had previously known little but strife.

Bulgaria's King Simeon II lost his throne in 1946, but returned to power last year after an adoring public elected him prime minister.

Yugoslavia showed an interest in its exiled royal family following years of separatist violence and the downfall of strongman Slobodan Milosevic, now on trial before an international war crimes tribunal.

And just months ago, Afghanistan's exiled King Mohammed Zahir Shah was repeatedly floated as a potential interim leader after the departure of the Taliban. He is believed to be considering returning to the country this year.

Experts say monarchs can work as a unifying force, representing all the people and preventing the jockeying for power that characterizes republics.

But getting rid of them seems to have few side effects either. The Italians rid themselves of the House of Savoy in 1946, and seem to have no pangs about it.

Germany was united as an empire in 1871, but the kaisers lasted less than 50 years. Since World War I, Germans have shown no desire to revive the throne.

And in France and the United States, the anniversary of date marking the move to republicanism is celebrated as one of the biggest holidays of the year.