Prince of Chota said:
My opinion on this matter is that a generation of new blood is due for the reigning houses of Europe, and while they should take care not to dilude the mystique of royalty, there is also incredible danger in living in the past. Any institution of monarchy that makes its existence seem outdated to its subjects puts itself in serious jeopardy. Also, with the tangle of international royal marriages in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, royal houses are genetically in danger without a more diverse gene pool.
That's exactly the point, I have to agree.
The concept of monarchy was once a form to stabilize a society that was constantly endangered by all kinds of things: plagues, famine, war with neighbors, political intrigue etc. To survive, people simply needed a concept that granted them security. Monarchy and a strict class system was an answer to that need. Then came the age of discovery and people not only discovered that the earth has far more to offer than previously known, the found the means to stabilize their society without the need for such a strict class system as they had before: discoveries in techniques and wisdom allowed for new ways to produce goods and trade helped to exchange knowledge. But with the upcoming self-esteem of the trading and producing class, a new (additional) upper class could be established which had the means and the intellect to search for political acceptance. Now it was no longer believed that a king had a god-given right to rule (the French revolution took care of that).
Today, I guess most people in the modern democracy not only accept but believe that all men are born equal and all human being should have a right to education and to a chance to better themselves in terms of their situation. But still there are monarchies? How could they survive?
I guess because they still symbolize a stability, they represent a glorious past and are the focus of wishes for a equally good present and future. Plus the members of the Royal families of today are hard-working people who need not use intrigues to secure their place on top of the society but have a right to be there and can use their time to help their people instead of taking part in petty affairs. Thus they offer a real advantage.
Here in Germany, most of the time men are appointed President of the Federal Republic who have proven that they have been of great advantage to our society but they are not prominent politiciens. It's good that way, it's the closest we can get to royality, these men represent a kind of inner nobility, they are part of our elite of highly educated men with a proven social conscience. Men like that don't go too active into politics.
So it's this role-model that is important today: to have a person who is above the political parties and who is there for the people, a symbol for the stability and the goodness of our society. The heads of states wield powers that have nothing to do with day-to-day politics, they are here to be the conscience of the state.
So, back to Royalty - why should these people or their children necessarily marry people who have to offer not only all the things required of a Royal (like compassion, discipline, love of their country) but have the bloodlines as well? Today, with the changed view of the position and meaning of a Royal family, having been brought up on top of the old caste system appears (at least to me) as a disadvantage as today's Royals are not longer what they used to be.
Mette-Marit for example has shown that even though she made the wrong decisions in the past she was able to make a thoughtful and compassionate man like Haakon fall in love with her and to defend her. Isn't that something Norwegians should be proud of? Their future king has shown that he is a man who looks beyond the shell into the core of a woman and found her suitable for the position he had to offer. Mette-Marit meanwhile proved that he was right in his opinion: she is a good mother, a compassionate princess and a good symbol for modern Norway, where you have a second chance at leading a worthy life if you only try to make it better this time.
I don't buy the concept of Royals being better people than most of us are because they are the descendents of people who used their power to keep other human beings poor and politically dependant. I think that most Royals who are really close to the throne are better people than most because they have learned from early on that the wellfare of others, of their people, counts more than their personal comfort. That's a hard lesson to learn and most of us wouldn't want to bear this burden. So I wish for them to meet the right partner who is willing to take this burden on and to share it with love and laughter, even if this partner is not descended from a Royal or noble family. There is a nobility inside people that count more than the outer nobility of ancestors, IMHO.
Sometimes I wonder what gives us human beings the right to try to decide what others should do or shouldn't do in such autocratic terms. As we are not to live with the "suitable aristocratic spouse" but only watch the Royal's life from afar (and sometimes with the help of paparazzi who really intrude into the life of these people), we should be very careful in what we ask of Royals.
I think it's okay if we (as representatives of "the people") say what we want from them professionally and in terms of conduct but to tell them whom to marry is reaching beyond the line that is drawn by the respect of the free will of any other human, IMHO.
). Sure there is a possiblity that they didn't marry below their station in the 1700s & 1800s but this past century has changed all that.
