No, we're not going to elect a king this November, so you can smile at the "King Donald or King Joe". It ain't gonna happen. I'll make no bones about it. I think royal titles are a worthless hangover from the Middle Ages, which should have been put in the dust bin of history centuries ago. But, if you were even close to a TV last year you know England celebrated the Coronation of King Charles. Of course, the streets in London were packed with folks who came to see the pageantry involved, and even though the coronation was a good tourist attraction, it didn't come free.
But royals pop up daily, and just a few years back Queen Elizabeth of England made an announcement that the wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, who is now King, should be known as Queen Consort. Whatever a consort is -- or maybe just Queenie. I had dog once named Queenie, and it was about as worthless as Queen whoever. Back a few months I noticed an article about Meghan Markel, who is now Megan, Duchess of Sussex who is married to Prince, whatever is his name. Who cares, and what difference does his title make? He's somewhere in line for the Royal Throne where he one day might be King of England.
Naturally, most kings and queens are just holdovers when they actually had power. Today, they are at best expensive tourist attractions. Royalty of course is still in vogue in many places around the world where folks have nothing better to do the fawn over folks with titles. In England there is a group of folks who do nothing but watch Royals called "Royal Watchers," and they post every time a Royal sneezes. Of course, as royals marry and have kids you have more and more titles, and all those titles carry about as much weight as Vertis, Duchess of Smackover or Prince Richard of Norphlet. Yes, that sounds so stupid I laughed while typing it. Actually, I think Duchess Vertis carries more stroke than most of the royals who make the gossip columns, since Duchess Vertis actually works and produces something for society, and is not just a drain on the economy.
Of course, all those titles are a carryover from the time when the King or Queen had the power to say "off-with-his-head" and it would come off. However, today most royals around the world have very little to do with running a country. Yes, I know you might say, "Well, just ignore them. They are just figureheads, and they aren't causing any trouble." On the surface that sound plausible, but Royals are certainly not free. In the UK royals cost the taxpayers $108 million a year according to a recent Internet posting. The small country of Monaco spends $54 million, Luxemburg $12 million and Spain $9 million to pay for royals.
But let's be fair. The pomp and circumstances produced by a Queen or King, who has absolutely no power, like in England, seems to be a great tourist attraction. Parading the Guard or celebrating the coronation of King Charles were certainly tourist attractions and the Royal Watchers beat the drums to get visitors to merry old England, but could all the attention and money be better used to improving the life of the average citizen in not just England, but around the world? I think it could.
But it's not just Europe where Royals suck up taxpayer money. Some of our closest allies in the Middle East are absolute monarchs, such as King Salman bin Abdulaziz of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Others are the Sultanate of Oman and the Sultanat, and these folks with their handpicked so-called representatives run the country. So much for our supporting non-democratic potentates.
The list I have from Wikipedia shows that there are 36 Constitutional Monarchs, 3 Absolute Monarchs, and one Absolute Theocracy (Pope Francis). We are familiar with a lot of Constitutional Monarchs such as King Charles, which is an inherited title, and there is a long list of English individuals who are in line to assume the throne. What if England completely did away with royalty? Would that make several hundred poor souls homeless? Not hardly. The former Queen of England not only lived in a palace, but she owned real estate all over the country. Of course, the Queen seemed to be a nice lady, but don't you think all that expense money could be used in a better way?
Now let's look back at the very beginning of the United States of America. We were a Colony of England, and King George held sway over the English provinces in North America. In our country there were those who called themselves Royalist, who supported England and King George. The Royalist were a substantial minority during the Revolutionary War, and when the Colonies won the war, there was a push to keep several English traditions, including Royals. I think we should realize one of the accomplishments of George Washington was that he absolutely refused to even consider the English concept and become King George of America. Not only did George Washington say no to "King George", the writers of our constitution made sure that there would never be an absolute royal figure, but an elected one, and we would have elective congress. Thank goodness the Constitution Writers made sure we were cutting our ties to Mother England, and they put in enough safeguards to be certain no president or army general could ever hold the title of supreme ruler. So, when you vote for President this fall, King Donld or King Joe won't be on the ballot.