21st CENTURY PRINCESSES AND PRINCES!

HRH Princess Madeline (1982)

Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, the youngest of the Swedish royal siblings, known as „Len“ to her friends. She has raised eyebrows for her temporal teenage transgressions and less-than-conservative eveningwear.

Charlotte Casiraghi (1986)

Known for her impeccable taste in fashion and photogenic looks–much like her grandmother Grace Kelly and mother Princess Caroline. Though she was raised in France, she remains fourth in line to the throne of Monaco.

HRH Prince Carl Philip (1979)

Second in line to the throne of Sweden, behind his older sister Victoria. The handsome prince got a degree from Forsberg School of Graphic Design in 2006 and since then has been traveling and making documentaries.

HIH Princess Tsuguko (1986)

Cousin of the reigning emperor of Japan and the eldest daughter of the late Prince Takamado. There is very little press coverage of the princess due to the chrysanthemum taboo, a cultural ban on reporting on the royal family outside of information released from the kingdom. Princess Tsuguko is currently studying sociology at Edinburgh University.

HRH Princess Sikhanyiso (1987)

The daughter of King Mswati III of Swaziland, the last existing absolute monarchy in the world. She is well-known for speaking out against patriarchal and traditional culture, as well as for wearing Western clothing and pursuing a hip-hop career. She's currently a speech and drama major at Biola University in California.

Andrea Casiraghi (1984)

The first of Princess Caroline of Monaco's three children. He is second in line to the throne behind his mother, though this could change if recent rumors regarding the possibility of reigning Prince Albert's upcoming nuptials turn out to be true. Andrea is known for his striking good looks and his romantic relationships.

HSH Maria Anunciata (1985)
Princess von und zu Liechtenstein, Countess of Rietberg, daughter of Nikolaus, Prince von und zu Liechtenstein and Margaretha, Princess of Luxembourg.

HRH Princess Iman bint Al Hussein (1983)
The daughter of the late King Hussein and reigning Queen Noor of Jordan. Though not nearly as exposed as the other princesses on our list, Princess Iman is known for her military service. She attended the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2002 and served in the Jordanian army soon after.

Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum (1982)

The Crown Prince of Dubai, the second eldest son of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Moktoum, the prime minister and vice president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Dubai. He was appointed the Chairman of the Dubai Executive Council in September 2006. He publishes poetry under the name Fazza and is an avid competitive equestrian.

HRH Princess Siriwannawari (1987)

The daughter of Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. She's achieved her own fame–and brought new eyes to Thailand–as a fashion designer. After showing two seasons during Bangkok's fashion week, she showed a collection during Paris' fashion week in the fall of 2007. She's also been an international badminton competitor, taking home a gold medal in the 2006 Southeast Asian games.

HRH Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume (1981)

His education includes Institut Le Rosey boarding schools in Switzerland and Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Camberley, England. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in International Politics at the University of Durham, and is now continuing his studies in Switzerland where he is studying Geopolitics. He has a passionate love for the sport of American football and is a fan of the New York Giants.

Zara Phillips (1981)

Princess by blood, if not by name. Her mother, Princess Anne, wanted her children to live without formal titles to make their lives easier. Zara, an impressive equestrian, won the gold medal in the World Equestrian Games in 2006 and is hoping to compete in the 2008 Olympics.

HRH Prince Alexander (1982)

Second son of Serbian Crown Prince Alexander II Karađorđević and Princess Maria da Gloria of Orléans-Braganza, he graduated in communications and media from San Francisco University and stayed in the city where he is currently obtaining job experience. He enjoys arts, photography, music, French films, and follows current affairs. He considers parties and a good time out the best way to

spend his spare time.

HSH Maria Theresia (1980)

Princess von Thurn und Taxis, daughter of Johannes Prince von Thurn und Taxis and Gloria Countess and Lady von Schönburg-Glauchau. Studies in London.

HRH Prince Henry (1984)

Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, known as Harry, a carefree royal: He has made headlines smoking marijuana, partying and dating South African heiress Chelsy Davy. But for the last months, he's been known in the press as „Hero Harry“ due to his time in the British Army.

Crown

A crown is the traditional symbolic form of headgear worn by a monarch or by a deity, for whom the crown traditionally represents power, legitimacy, immortality, righteousness, victory, triumph, resurrection, honour and glory of life after death. In art the crown may be shown being offered to those on Earth by angels. Apart from the traditional form, crowns also may be made of for example flowers, stars, oak leaves or thorns and be worn by others, representing what the coronation part aims to symbolize with the specific crown. They often contain jewels.

Terminology

Three distinct categories of crowns exist in those monarchies that use crowns or state regalia.

1. Coronation crowns - only worn by monarchs at the point of coronation, i.e., installation by taking possession of the crown'
2. State or Imperial crowns - worn by monarchs on other state occasions. (Note that similar headgear, worn by nobility and other high ranking people below the ruler, is in English called a coronet, however in many languages the same word is used, e.g., French couronne, German Krone, Dutch kroon);
3. Consort crowns - worn by Queens consort and Princes consort, signifying rank granted as a constitutional courtesy protocol.

In Classical antiquity the crown (corona) that was sometimes awarded to people other than rulers, such as triumphal military generals or athletes, was actually a wreath or chaplet, or ribbonlike diadem.

History

The precursor to the crown was the browband called the diadem, which had been worn by the Achaemenid Persian emperors, was adopted by Constantine I, and was worn by all subsequent rulers of the later Roman Empire.

Numerous crowns of various forms were used in Antiquity, such as the White crown, Red Crown, combined Pschent crown and blue crown of Pharaonic Egypt.

The corona radiata, the „radiant crown“ known best on the Statue of Liberty, and perhaps worn by the Helios that was the Colossus of Rhodes, was worn by pagan Roman emperors, part of the cult of Sol Invictus. It was referred to as „the chaplet studded with sunbeams” by Lucian, about 180 AD (in Alexander the false prophet).

Perhaps the oldest Christian crown in Europe is the Iron Crown of Lombardy, of Roman and Longobard age, later again used to crown modern Kings of Napoleonic, Austrian and reunited Italy.

In the Christian tradition of European cultures, where ecclesiastical sanction authenticates monarchic power, when a new monarch assumes the throne in a coronation ceremony, the crown is placed on the new monarch's head by a religious official. Some, though not all early Holy Roman Emperors travelled to Rome at some point in their careers to be crowned by the pope. Napoleon, according to legend, surprised Pius VII when he reached out and crowned himself, although in reality this order of ceremony had been pre-arranged: see coronation.

Today, only the British Monarchy continues this tradition as the sole remaining anointed and crowned monarch, though many monarchies retain a crown as a national symbol in heraldry. The French Crown Jewels were sold in 1885 on the orders of the Third French Republic, with only a token number, with their precious stones replaced by glass, held on to for historic reasons and displayed by the Louvre. The Spanish Crown Jewels were destroyed in a major fire in the eighteenth century while the Irish Crown Jewels (actually merely the Sovereign's insignia of the Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick) were stolen from Dublin Castle in 1907.

Special headgear to designate rulers dates back to pre-history, and is found in many separate civilizations around the globe. Commonly, rare and precious materials are incorporated into the crown, but that is only essential for the notion of crown jewels. Gold and precious jewels are common in western and oriental crowns. In the Native American civilizations of the Pre-Columbian New World, rare feathers, such as that of the quetzal, often decorated crowns; so too in Polynesia (e.g. Hawaii).

Coronation is often combined with other rituals, such as enthronement (the throne is as much a symbol of monarchy as the crown) and anointing (again religious sanction, the only defining act in the Biblical tradition of Israel).

In other cultures no crown is used in the equivalent of coronation, but the head may still be otherwise symbolically adorned, as a royal tikka in the Hindu tradition of India.

As an emblem

A Crown is often an emblem of the monarchy, a monarch's government, or items endorsed by it. A specific type of crown (or coronet for lower ranks of peerage) is employed in heraldry under strict rules. Indeed some monarchies never had a physical crown, just a heraldic representation, as in the constitutional kingdom of Belgium, where no coronation ever took place; the royal installation is done by a solemn oath in parliament, wearing a military uniform: the King is not acknowledged as by divine right, but assumes the only hereditary public office in the service of the law; so he in turn will swear in all members of „his“ federal government.

• Costume headgear imitating a monarch's crown is also called a crown. Such costume crowns may be worn by actors portraying a monarch, people at costume parties, or ritual „monarchs“ such as the king of a Carnival krewe, or the person who found the trinket in a king cake.

• The Eastern Orthodox marriage service has a section called the crowning, wherein the bride and groom are crowned as „king“ and „queen“ of their future household. In Greek weddings, the crowns are diadems usually made of white flowers, synthetic or real, often adorned with silver or mother of pearl. They are placed on the heads of the newlyweds and are held together by a ribbon of white silk. They are then kept by the couple as a reminder of their special day. In Slavic weddings, the crowns are usually made of ornate metal, designed to resemble an imperial crown, and are held above the newlyweds heads by their best men. A parish usually owns one set to use for all the couples that are married there since these are much more expensive than Greek-style crowns.

• Children, mainly girls, sometimes connect flowers together in a chain, and wear the wreath as if it were a crown.

• Crowns are also often used as symbols of religious status or veneration, by divinities (or their representation such as a statue) or by their representatives, e.g. the black crown of the Karmapa Lama, sometimes used a model for wider use by devotees.

• A Crown of thorns is believed to have been placed on the head of Jesus before his crucifixion and has become a common symbol of martyrdom. Madonna raised controversy when she wore one on the opening night of her World Tour in May 2006.

• The Crown of Immortality is also common in historical symbolism.

The heraldic symbol of three crowns, referring to the three evangelical Magi (wise men), traditionally called kings, is believed thus to have become the symbol of the Swedish kingdom, but it also fits the historical (personal, dynastic) Kalmar Union (1397-1520) between the three kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

Numismatics

Because one or more crown, alone or as part of a more elaborate design, often appear on coins, several monetary denominations came to be known as 'a crown' or the equivalent word in the local language.

This persists in the case of the national currencies of Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

Arguments for the Kingdom of Serbia (7)

Dušan Kovačević, member of the Crown Council

Monarchy is the best, the most realistic and the most practical option for Serbia. Serbia must be established on the foundations which she had always lied on. If we look at the very practical parameters, like marketing and branding of a country, at this moment there is not a single person in Serbia who could phone any relevant world leader, especially in the countries with the same form of government (and these are the wealthiest countries in Europe), in which our Crown Prince has both family and friendly ties. Serbia needs to be a modern, democratic country. Based on my contacts and my friendship with the Crown Prince, I don’t know anybody who is a bigger democrat in Serbia. That means not a monarchy in some outdated form, but the type which exists in the northern European countries, like Sweden. For me, it simply has a nice sound to it – the Kingdom of Serbia.


Milorad Pavić, member of the Crown Council

Re-establishment of monarchy would be followed by establishment of much better relations with the international community, and it would be immediately clear what kind of country we were. Serbia would have a very modern diplomacy, because its head of state would be someone who knows the world, and who is known in the world. I think that our so far experience has shown that Serbia hasn’t found its way yet, that it is still searching, especially if one looks at foreign relations. Re-establishment of monarchy would make it much simpler, and it would also be a historical rectification. Let us not forget that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was destroyed by fascist in 1941, and that the King had to leave the country to avoid captivity. And, on the other hand, when the communists defeated fascists, they forbade the king and the royal family to return to the country ad illegally took over the government. Therefore, on the one hand, we would restore the system that was illegally abolished, and so much time has gone by since then. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves if we ever had any other system throughout our history. Serbs had always had kings, and it is only natural for them. There are several countries in Europe today with kings as heads of states. King is a democratic and non-partisan institution. He guarantees unity and harmony between government branches. We have a king, and if some other countries had one, they would embrace him firmly.

As for the chances of re-establishment of monarchy, the polls show that about 30 percent of the people are for that direction of Serbia’s future. Such percentage could be compared with the rating of major political parties, but we do not do that, because the Crown is above politics. However, politics are constantly changing, and no one knows what tomorrow brings. Of course, Alexander II has always been against anti-democratic parties. He has never been hiding it, and he will continue such orientation. By his birth, and by his ties all over the world, he naturally takes such attitude, which makes it easy to follow. Nobody can tell the future, but if Serbia has a choice, it has a chance to save herself from the undefined status, by re-establishment of the kingdom.

Constitutional monarchy: better than the alternative

Manoutchehr M. Eskandari-Qajar is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern History, and Chair of the Department of Political Science, at Santa Barbara City College, California.

Iranian and Austrian experience suggests to this observer that the argument for constitutional monarchy against republicanism is most convincing on pragmatic grounds.

Monarchy is part of my heritage on both sides of my family. While my link with Iranian monarchy is indeed personal - our family ruled Iran until 1925 - Austrian monarchy has also left its indelible mark on me, as it has on most every aspect of Austrian life to this day. This mixed heritage has allowed me to give the question of monarchy serious thought.

Austria and Iran without their monarchy are not hypothetical questions, but lived realities for one with my background. On the one hand they created in me an apprehension of absolute monarchy. On the other, not a sympathy for republicanism, but an appreciation for the value of constitutional monarchy instead. I firmly believe both countries would be better off with this form of government than with the ones they presently have. Personal and familial reasons aside, what can one say in favor of constitutional monarchy in either country?

Both Austria and Iran rejected their monarchy, but in their rejection chose very different paths. Iran was robbed of its constitutional monarchy once in 1925, in the name of strength and progress. It became an absolute monarchy instead. Then in 1979 it rejected absolute monarchy, but replaced one absolutism with another. In so doing, it missed out on the stabilising effect of monarchy while also missing out on the democratising effect of constitutional rule, and so, ended up with neither.

Austria abolished its monarchy by blaming its fate on its king rather than on the larger structural forces that brought about the conflagration of the Great War. The turbulence of the post-war years gave Hitler the opening he needed. With a monarch, Austrians would not have looked to a Fuhrer for greatness - witness the Danes during that same period for a case in point. There is today no weighty reason for Austria’s continued rejection of its monarchy. The only weight is that of habit from over eighty years of living without. Would Jorg Haider have this kind of appeal if his conservative followers had a constitutional monarchy to support?

Odd as it may sound to republican ears, constitutional monarchy has been an unqualified success story wherever it has thrived. The success alone of this form of government therefore, should be a sufficient argument in its favor. But this is not enough for its opponents, and their arguments against it are multi-layered, and complex.

The core of the republican argument against constitutional monarchy is this: obsolescence and redundancy. The argument from obsolescence is that of anachronism. The argument from redundancy is more complex. It takes the form of this question: What additional role does monarchy play in a democracy that is not already covered by the roles of existing institutions? Those defending monarchy have spent precious energy outlining what this role is, to no avail. The reason is that the republican argument really masks another question: Why should this person be there by heredity and not by popular choice? To that there is no satisfactory answer in a republican age. Therefore, what should proponents of constitutional monarchy say when faced with the challenge of justifying its existence?

They should ask their opponents to look at how countries with constitutional monarchies have fared, and ask by what criteria their opponents have established that without these monarchies those countries would be better off. Here the argument from expense will not do as republics are just as expensive. Neither would the argument from elitism, as republics are just as prone to elitism, though more awkwardly perhaps!

In great anticipation of worthy answers, we monarchists remain, therefore, all ears!

VIDOVDAN

Vidovdan (Видовдан) is a religious holiday, St. Vitus' Day, whose feast is on June 15. Where the Eastern Orthodox Church still uses the Julian calendar, as in Serbia, that date coincides, in the 20th and 21st centuries, with June 28 in the Gregorian calendar.

Vidovdan has long been considered a date of special importance in Serbia and the Balkans, because of the historical events that happened on that day. By far the most important is the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, the death of Prince Lazar and the so called demise of Serbian empire. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Serbian church commemorates the event as the Day of Holy Prince Lazar the Great Martyr.

The origin of word Vidovdan has several interpretations, none of which has been scientifically proved. According to one, it represents continuity of celebrating the Slavic pagan deity Svetovid, the god of plenitude and war, who might had been the supreme deity of the Serbs. Another version claims that reverence of St. Vitus (lat. Sanctus Vitus) was brought into Serbia by the Saxonian catholic miners, and the saint was customized to local populace. Svetovid was also worshiped in Polablje (region in today’s eastern Germany), where his temples were converted to the churches dedicated to St. Vitus.

According to the third interpretation, related to the tradition and myth of Kosovo battle, the clash of the two armies happened on the day when it was to be seen (videti in Serbian) who is faithful, and who is infidel. From then on, the day was named Vidovdan.

Being royalist the Danish way

Solana Larsen, member of the board of openDemocracyUSA, contributes regularly to Danish national radio and other media, and has been a collaborator in numerous global internet activism projects.

The bond of affection between monarchy and people in Denmark is grounded in a shared sense of the national character.

Like Carlsberg, Danish bacon and Lego, the Danes will boast about most things that put them on the world map. And the monarchy is one of them. A thoroughly Danish expression is hyggelig, which means cozy, nice and jolly all wrapped into one. And that is how many Danes choose to characterise their monarchy. Refusing to get into the politics of it all, they like to think the Queen, the Princes, and the traditions that follow are not something to be taken too seriously.

Queen Margrethe II is admired by most in her own right. She has, after all, designed ballet costumes for the Royal Danish Ballet, and lent her art to posters and calendars for various charitable causes. She’s translated books, and even illustrated a 1977 version of The Lord of the Rings. She smokes like a chimney, and the people take bizarre pride in the fact that she only smokes Danish (‘Prince’) cigarettes. Indeed, it would be unseemly for a Danish queen to smoke anything else.

Danes hate for anyone to think they are better than them, blue-blooded or not. Regents of the past have found an irreverent approach to regal privileges to be the way into people’s hearts. My grandmother often tells the story of how her mother, as a little girl, was handed a piece of chocolate by the King Christian X on one of his early morning outings. He ruled during both World Wars, and was famous for riding his horse alone around the streets of Copenhagen - even at the time of the German occupation.

Likewise, the public responds with a friendly and irreverent approach to the Royal Family. Urban myths flourish. Everyone will tell you how the recently deceased Queen Mother, Ingrid, was a shoplifter and that her bodyguards would pay for everything she pocketed. A persistent rumour decrees that the Queen’s French husband, Prince Henri, is gay. When the young Prince Regent, Frederik, complained he could not go to a bar without anyone notifying the press, a national tabloid printed posters for bars and cafés to display, headed: “Freddy is free”. For weeks an atmosphere of unity prevailed over allowing the prince his privacy.

Velvet seriousness

At New Year, the Queen delivers a televised speech to the Danish public. She is not allowed party political views but has made a firm tradition of pondering cultural and ethical issues. Last year’s speech was especially meaningful. Along with much of Europe, Denmark has seen growing electoral popularity for the far right. A rather fearful debate about immigrant issues has dominated politics in recent years. Who else but Her Majesty would tell Danes to be nice to one another?

“History has shown far too many examples of how insecurity and fear has nourished prejudice and caused differences between people,” she said, remarking that it can be just as difficult for foreigners to adapt to Danish society, as for Danes to admit that it has changed. “Standing together is not something which can be achieved from one side only. It requires something of us all, because it is not always easy to recognise your neighbour behind a different appearance and unknown customs.”

How unusual and wonderful to have a monarchy that relates directly to the public. Danish royals go to public schools, drive their own cars, and lead independent productive lives, as well as representing Denmark in situations where politicians have little real purpose. And while no one really expects the present Queen’s descendants to be as popular, the monarchy is not something the Danes would likely bid farewell to. Like fairy tales, ice cream and beer, it plays an important role in Danish culture. But then, we like to think, most hyggelig things do.

Future of the monarchy

Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University, one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a hereditary head of state reigns but does not rule. In separating the role of head of state from that of head of government, a constitutional monarchy ensures that the head of state is free from party ties. This, surely, is of inestimable value in an age when politics has come to invade almost every aspect of our national life, choking all too many activities in its unnatural embrace.

It is because of her political neutrality that the Queen can act not only as head of state but also as head of the nation, or, perhaps more accurately, as head of the various nations which comprise the United Kingdom. At times of national commemoration such as the anniversary of D Day or VE Day, the Queen speaks for all, whatever their political allegiance. She alone is in a position to interpret the country to itself. A president could not easily do so because of the political baggage which he or she would carry. Republicans have, admittedly, been searching, rather desperately, for a modern analogue to the late Lord Franks, a member of the great and the good without any party history, whom they can propose for the British presidency. The trouble is, however, that Margaret Thatcher demanded that the great and the good stand up to be counted. They were either for her or against. Since then, the great and the good seem mysteriously to have disappeared.

But in any case no figure, however eminent, could aspire to the presidency without acquiring the support of a political party. Indeed, with a directly elected president, as in France, the parties would put all their energies into getting their own candidate into Buckingham Palace. This conception of the presidency, however, as political leader as well as head of state, would radically alter our political system. Politicians here would be no more likely to agree to it than they were in Australia where last year's republican referendum offered the alternative of a president chosen not, as in France, by the people but, as in Germany and Italy, by parliament.

A president chosen by parliament would most likely be a retired politician, a party warhorse who could be relied upon not to cause trouble. Names such as Neil Kinnock and Tony Newton spring to mind, although the Conservatives might just conceivably be prepared to risk Margaret Thatcher, hoping perhaps that high symbolic office would put a stop to her wilder utterances. One cannot help feeling, however, that the appearance of Mr Kinnock, Mr Newton or even Lady Thatcher on the balcony of Buckingham Palace for the anniversary of VE Day, would not have had quite the emotional resonance of an appearance by the Queen.

There is, in much of the western world, a distinctly anti-political mood, as voters come to feel that they can make better decisions for themselves than politicians acting on their behalf. It was indeed partly for this reason that the Australian referendum resulted in a defeat for the republicans. In the United States the legitimacy of government has been severely damaged by the confusions in Florida that remind us of the dangers of a political system in which every office has a party taint, even the courtrooms being stuffed with political appointees. If the answer is more politicians, we are, as John Major once said, asking the wrong question.

The unifying role of the monarchy has become even more important with devolution which has made Britain an explicitly multinational state. In Belgium, it is sometimes said that the king is the only Belgian, everyone else being either Fleming or Walloon. Similarly, in Britain a president would be either English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish - most probably English, since the English comprise 85% of the population. The Queen alone can belong, not to any single one of the nationalities comprising the United Kingdom, but to all of them.

There is a further feature of our monarchy which is often ignored: its international aspect. The Queen is the symbolic head of a multiracial Commonwealth of 54 countries representing around one-third of the world's population. Most of these countries are former British colonies who have chosen, entirely voluntarily, to continue their association with Britain. While lacking formal powers, the Commonwealth is not without influence, enabling Britain, in Douglas Hurd's words, to „punch above her weight“ in diplomatic affairs, through her connections with Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean. An elected head of the Commonwealth, however, would probably seek a more positive leadership role which the Commonwealth would be unable to sustain, while a rotating head, as once proposed by Tony Benn, might have allowed Idi Amin of Uganda to traverse the world as head of the Commonwealth. Thus the device by which the Queen is a symbolic head enables it to avoid what could prove an embarrassing constitutional problem.

It is because the arguments for constitutional monarchy are so powerful that republicanism has not been a serious political force in Britain since the 1870s, when Joseph Chamberlain confidently told his Radical colleague, Sir Charles Dilke, that: „The republic must come, and at the rate at which we are moving, it will come in our generation.“

The 1870s, however, proved to be the high water mark of republicanism, and, in the 20th century, the left has disdained it. The Labour party conference last debated the monarchy in 1923 when republicanism was defeated by 3,694,000 votes to 386,000. In the aftermath of the abdication, in December 1936, a republican motion in the Commons could muster only five votes in its support.

Today, however, republicans have come up with a new argument. They claim that monarchy, whose roots lie in the past, symbolises deference and hierarchy, thereby underpinning values which hinder the modernisation of Britain. It is the idea of the crown, insists Stephen Haseler, chairman of Republic, which „stops us from seriously modernising our polity“.

It is hard to take this argument seriously. Denmark, Norway and Sweden, after all, are monarchies, yet more markedly egalitarian than such republics as France and Germany. Italy is hardly more modern than Norway, nor is Portugal noticeably more efficient than the Netherlands. Moreover, the experience of Japan shows that a monarchy of a highly traditional kind is perfectly compatible with economic success. The truth is that, in Britain, the monarchy has become the latest and the least convincing of the many scapegoats which the left has produced to account for its failure to win the people to its cause.

There is indeed no correlation between republicanism and modernisation. Constitutional monarchy yields not conservatism but legitimacy since it settles beyond argument the question of who is to be head of state, putting that position beyond the reach of politicians. Wise leaders of the left, from Gladstone to Blair, have always understood that because change is bound to be disorientating, a reforming government needs the monarchy even more than a government committed to the status quo. It is for this reason that the hopes of modern republicans are likely to be dashed as cruelly as were those of Joseph Chamberlain 130 years ago.