There’s something to be said for that, depending on exactly how one defines “undo his own institution”. There’s far too much history and inertia, not to mention actual relevance to the system of government, for the monarchy to entirely disappear. But the death of the much-respected Queen Elizabeth II may well have started a process of institutional transformation that may just be beginning to unfold.
It may be time for the British monarchy to become something more akin to the Governor General in Commonwealth countries – a respected non-political figurehead with certain constitutional and ceremonial duties, not a demi-god living a life of opulent excess. Although I imagine some sociologists might argue that every society needs some form of royalty as a cultural icon. In the absence of such, the nation turns to its political leadership instead, usually with disappointing results. This is particularly true in the US, where the president and his spouse are ensconced in a white palace and the former is traditionally revered as more than just a political leader, and accorded royal pomp & ceremony.
There are lots of republics with low-key non-executive presidencies who perform limited constitutional and ceremonial functions are are otherwise basically ignored. Nobody even notices their children’s weddings. It seems to work just fine.
Leaving aside kooky conspiracies, the actual question is for what? And the follow up is, is it life threatening? My guess is no but speculation will continue as long as nothing continues to be said.
That would be my guess as well. That’s around the same time my ex had to have her procedure. There are other worse things that the imagination can come up with.
You’re some decades behind the times. The 1936 Abdication started that process, and it’s been accelerating since the 1960s.
A complicating factor is that the continental monarchies have much smaller national populations and international connections creating expectations and invitations to live up to.
Well, there was a huge blogging industry around royal watchers that did pay a lot of attention to Prince Carl of Sweden’s wedding (for example) - but Americans didn’t get up at 4am to watch it. A lot of that interest died out with Meghan - those bloggers were interested in Meghan, but a lot of people got racist/mean, and she didn’t seem to take it well, so a lot of those blogs backed off and do more arms length coverage.
Yet despite wedding vows going bork bork bork, those weddings were NOT ignored - they just didn’t have the media attention. And the media attention can’t be blamed on the royal family - if no one got up at 4 am to watch in America, American TV wouldn’t carry it. If no one in Britain turned on the TV for “Charles gets a New Hat” day, British media would cover it with more of the tone that recently accompanied the coronation in Denmark.
Replace “Prince Carl of Sweden” with “Princess Eugenie” and it was about as popular in the USA, with the added feature that not even the BBC aired it live - only ITV. The only channel I know of in the USA that aired it live was TLC, and even that used the ITV feed - and I wouldn’t be surprised if the main reason TLC even bothered to cover it was because of Eugenie’s mother.
There’s a Prince Carl of Sweden? Guess yah learn something every day. Just to mean that I’m always a bit surprised when I hear of some European nation still having a queen or king. They still have a monarchy? Who knew? I even tune out the UK monarchy as much as possible. I don’t think I’m special. Monarchy followers are fanatical, but I don’t think they’re all that big in actual numbers. Or they’re like me watching certain TV shows – I’m only there to snark.
Countries get the monarch they deserve. Britain wants glamorous drama, so that’s what they get. Or, at least that’s what the press markets to them. I think what we think of as the Monarchy is mostly an invention the media.
Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway all have royal families with official duties to the country. They aren’t political duties, they are figurehead duties.
Nitpick: The Swedish monarchy no longer has any official duties or functions. The King doesn’t appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister; the Speaker of the Riksdag does that. Other ministers are appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister. The King doesn’t assent to legislation enacted by Parliament; the Government does. The King is not even the nominal commander-in-chief of the armed forces; etc, etc. Swedish monarchs used to discharge all these functions, but lost them about 40 years ago. The residual functions of the Swedish monarchy are non-governmental and are purely ceremonial and representative.
You misunderstand me. I’m not saying that nobody in the US notices their children’s weddings; I’m sayhing nobody in the country concerned notices them.