Editorial: The relevance of royalty

On a day when Twitter was abuzz with election rhetoric unleashed by various parties across Tamil Nadu and poll-bound states in the rest of India, the microblogging site was also brimming over with buzz of another kind. The hashtag #OprahMeghanHarry was not just an India-specific trend, it had assumed a cultural significance. The ‘tell-all’ Oprah Winfrey interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who have been estranged from Buckingham Palace for some time now, has all the trappings of a high on drama, low on concept, straight-to-streaming blockbuster. There are domineering blue-bloods, racial injustice, and abdications to speak of. And of course, the ‘you heard it first, here’ tidbits that have brought the institution of the monarchy under a scanner.

It’s certainly worth pondering over - whether in a world where democracy is more or less the accepted form of governance, do titles such as Queens, Kings, Princes, and Princesses hold any relevance. Some nations certainly believe in upholding the concept of royalty as was highlighted recently in Thailand when the Bangkok Criminal Court charged three democracy activists with insulting the monarchy and has ordered them to pre-trial detention. The activists were taken to task for demanding reforms to the monarchy under the nation’s lese majeste laws and could face imprisonment of up to 15 years. This is despite reports that the Thai king was living an opulent life in his Bavarian villa in Germany, while his countrymen were reeling under the impact of COVID-19. Human rights activists haven’t taken lightly to such developments in Thailand’s constitutional monarchy, where the King is more or less, a symbolic figurehead with ceremonial responsibilities.

One must also consider the case of the Principality of Liechtenstein, which is a semi-constitutional monarchy located in Central Europe. The region is headed by the Prince, who is referred to as Europe’s most powerful monarch and has been bestowed with the power to dissolve the Parliament as well as veto legislation. This monarch is an oddity of sorts in Europe where several kings and queens have given up their privileges and passed on their political powers to national parliaments. Diametrically opposite to the concept of constitutional monarchies are absolute monarchies found in Oman, Qatar, Brunei, and Saudi Arabia, where the Kings retain a much greater quantum of powers and privileges.

The ongoing Battle Royale in Buckingham Palace has raised the question of whether monarchies merit the reverential treatment meted out to them. According to staunch critics of the British Royal Family, who operate within the framework of a Constitutional monarchy, the institution is old-fashioned and encourages practices and privileges that have no place in today’s world. The biggest argument is the Royal family living without the burden of taxes in palaces, and criss-crossing the world on taxpayers’ money. However, this argument has been offset by legions of WCF (Working Class Fans) who see them as cultural ambassadors, and upholders of a grand old heritage that they are proud of.

However, despite all that the royals stand for, in the times of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and deep concerns about racism, revelations that the complexion of an unborn child’s skin could affect a legacy as rich as theirs is hard to ignore. In today’s world, traditions that cannot adapt to modern times lose their value and relevance. To continue a legacy means factoring in diversity, innovation and change, else a monarchy too will get reduced to being stuck in a royal rut.