Muhler, thanks for explaining but I still don't get your point.
If monarchy and a royal family is what defines a country, does that mean that the countrymen don't have anything in common more than having the same monarch as head of state? What is the point being a country if the only thing that stands the country united is its royal family? Surely Danes have more in common - an history, a culture, a language - than being all Margrethe II's subjects.
You also wrote : "An impressive pedigree does not make you more suitable for the role as royal. "
Indeed, but royal are made royals by their pedigree or a wedding with someone who has a pedigree. I agree that a head of state has to earn respect and he/she can't allow himself/herself to be lazy and dictatorial. But then, a royal who has deserved the respect he earned is a royal only for he or his/her spouse has been born into a special family and has a pedigree, an history, more notorious ancestors. I don't deny at all the danish people do highly respect queen Margrethe II, but her and all her royal fellows wouldn't have even been in position to have to earn respect as a crown princess first and a queen then had she not been into a family with a special position and a special lineage. That she, as every modern royal, has to work hard to keep her position, will never obliterate that they are who they are for something they did nothing, i.e. being born in a special family.
A Margrethe Andersen, born 16th april 1940 in Copenhagen, may be a nice lady, worth knowing, dedicated to her work, her family and the poors asking her parish for help, she may have all the qualities queen Margrethe does have, she still differs from queen Margrethe II by being born into a commoner family and not having ever been in position to access the danish throne. A Margrethe Andersen may have deserved respect from her fellow countrymen as much as queen Margrethe II, she will never be watched by a whole country each and every New Year Eve, and all the difference is made by her or her spouse's lineage. That is why royals are special. It does not mean they can slack and enjoy taking advantage on the taxpayer's money. But that is the reality : their birth or the birth of their spouse has given them a special position. That goes with hereditary monarchy.
Great points.
Of course we have more in common than merely the monarchy. However keep in mind that we Danes are a tribe, so the leading family of our tribe is important. That family
has to be an integral part of the tribe.
It's not someone who live in a palace far away or who ride past once in a while. The royal family lives, so to speak, within our village. Physically interacting with us on a day to day basis. The distance between us and them is not far, because that's how it works within a tribe or a village.
That means we see them up close, and they see us up close. We know them, literally. And that means we respect them and show respect and close our eyes for some of the mistakes they sometimes make and close ranks around them when members of other tribes dare to criticize them.
But... But if they don't interact with the tribe, if they become aloof, if they become too elitist they sign themselves out. - I live in a village in the real world, you are either a part of the community, or you are not.
That's why personality matters before pedigree. Because we, the tribe, know perfectly well who you are, we know perfectly well about your background.
On top of that our royals have been wise (IMO) enough to almost always having chosen an outsider as consort. That means our new "daughter-in-law" is welcomed by the tribe. And we will get to know her, oh yes! If she assimilates and work for us and show her loyalty for the tribe, we will give her protection, acceptance, respect, loyalty and comfort in return. If she fails, she will remain an outsider. (Just see how PH did. he has only recently been tolerated rather than accepted by the tribe).
That means that it is the personality and the character that matters. No pedigree, however impressive it may be, will help her, if the tribe doesn't accept her.
This I believe is the best way to really understand how a monarchy works, at least in a small nation.
Then there is the institution of monarchy, the first family so to speak.
It works very much because the life of a royal belongs to the state from birth to death. That means life long dedication to your country, because there really isn't much else you can do. And you might just as well try and do your best, because it won't get better and you'll get a lot of heat if you don't. Also, most don't want to let their family (and tribe) down.
You look at the portraits of your predecessors, that must be pretty daunting! So you'd better do your very best not to fail them and the institution they represented.
It's an institution that has been around for a long time and that creates a lot of inertia and it leaves behind a large cultural and historical wake. Something that has become deeply rooted in the fabric of a nation.
What are the alternatives?
An elected head of state. Sitting for determined period and often defined by the person. To be replaced by someone and sometimes something completely new. Fine, but less deeply rooted.
Also as QMII obeserved, if she had been elected she would always be aware that there would be some who hadn't voted for her. She isn't elected, so that's it.
A celebrity or a celeb-family as a kind of pseudo-royals? Yeah, but will it work for generatio after generation? Not to mention that inevitable oblivion or unpopularity awaits practically all celebs.
But let's return to pedigree for a while.
If we were to maintain the monarchies on the condition that the pedigree is right, then we ought to abolish them IMO.
Firstly because pedigree is no guarantee for success. Look at Princess Diana. First class pedigree, marriage was a disaster. - For all sorts of reason of course, but one of them no doubt being that she did not want to accept that her marriage was primarily for dynastic reasons. That her job was to give birth to heirs, smile and turn a blind eye to the fact that her husband wasn't genuinely in love with her.
Forgive me if I sound naive, but I believe royals have the right to at least try and be happy as well. To marry for love and take their chances like the rest of us. Because marriage is hard work!
Secondly, are we to demand of a crownprince/ss that he/she cannot marry the one he loves? Not because she/he is not qualified, not because there is something wrong with her character, not because she has an unfortunate past - but because her pedigree simply isn't exclusive enough?!?
Well, we would see a multitude of otherwise prime royal material standing in line to opt out! Who would remain? Those who are lucky enough to fall in love with a noble person with just the right bloodline and the less suitable... Those we probably really wouldn't have as first choice anyway.
The snobs, the indifferent, the ambitious (I wanna be king regardless) and the less endowed.
Hurrah, eh? But they would all have an impressive pedigree...
We are of course all a result of our environment. Margrethe Andersen may never have appeard on TV, but she might have been happy as an archeologist and perhaps met an artistic Frenchman. Had two sons, one of whom married an Australian and settled in Sydney with their four children.
But QMII was born royal, so for her Destiny Oblige.
