Marengo said:
Tourism is not a reason to keep a monarchy. In my country that is never used by people to show the use of the monarchy. It is more that there is an a-political leader of the nation that can become a strong national symbol. For presidents that is more difficult as they alway represent a political party and thus just a small part of the country. Apart from that, te monarchy usually belongs o the cultural heritage of a country, which is important to.
The counrty most likely to become a republic is the country that doesn t need such a symbol anymore, as it stops to exsist. So I would gather Belgium, though I hope that they will find a way to reunite the walloons and flamish people.
Respectfully, your first paragraph sounds like a political talking point. Not to be disrepectful, but I would venture to say that Holland's World Cup soccer team is more of "an a-political leader of the nation that can become a strong national symbol" than Queen Beatrix.
The point of cultural heritage is probably the most significant contribution modern royals can make. Too bad that most of the royals do not lecuture or write books on the topic save for example Prince Michael of Greece and several others born in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
In fairness, perhaps the House of Orange and other royals discharge many righteous duties anonymously and spend some of their vast wealth (House of Orange) on charities. I also concede that being royal comes with many limitations.
If Prince Harry sees some legitimate combat in Iraq, I will be very impressed. Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate much less support this failed attempt at nation bulding and redistribution of wealth, but at least PH is risking his life for a county that has given so much to him and his family. And what is more, it is written that he wants to go. I have great respect for the Duke of York in this regard. DoY saw actual conbat and placed himself in harms way as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands. I find it offensive when I see royals parading around in a miliary uniform like they were sporting some Versace outfit on the read carpet. There is much more to the military than wearing a uniform, ceremonial or incomplete military training. I think most people would be more impressed by royals engaging in acts of selflessness and this is not limited to military service. Prince Charles has been given much credit and rightfully so for promoting inter faith dialogue long before 9/11.
By all accounts, Abdullah II of Jordan is a royal in the best position to postively effect geopolitics and world peace. He is viewed as a moderate by the west and has credibility in the middle east. He also appears to embrace his role as a potential peace maker as did his father the late King Hussein even at the risk of being toppled by radical forces in Jordan and/or the region. This is an example of duty and for this reson he is admired by many. Granted, AII simlpy found himself in circumstance, but what have or what are the current crown princes doing?
There is a lot more to royalty and royal history than a dream of marring a prince/ss, what they wear, what they look like, who they are dating, etc. or the discussion of reports that Ana Anderson was seen at a 7 11 buying some gas with Elvis in the car.
Privilege, wealth, genius, heroism, generosity, duty, etc. is pointless if not used or cultivated.
and Princess Letizia should learn Catalan, Euskera and Gallego as well, because they won't be respected as much if they don't show some respect to the autonomic communities that form Spain nowadays (The actual King and Queen don't speak those languages but they earned people's respect so many years ago, when the languages weren't such a huge issue in Spain)
