Mark Gritter (markgritter) wrote,
Mark Gritter

Why are middle-aged monarchs preferable to old ones?

I am trying to understand the point of this Economist leader about how George Alexander Louis will have to wait until 2070 (or later) to become king, and perhaps the British monarchy should take a page from Queen Beatrix and King Albert, and abdicate into retirement.

What is the benefit of having a monarch who is merely middle-aged instead of one who is elderly? I mean, I don't see the point of a monarch at all. (The Netherland's royal family is, in my opinion, a foreign imposition--- the Netherlands have been a monarchy for less time than a republic.) So why does it matter that the younger members of the family will be crown princes or princesses for a long time? They are hardly likely to stage a coup in order to ascend to the throne.

If you want a young leader, elect one. If you insist on some hereditary ceremonial head of state, don't complain about the random and arbitrary nature of the succession. It's like complaining that the kings should have smaller ears or more hair or something.
Tags: rant
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.