In centuries before the electronic age, monarchies were the movie stars of their day. If you look at old newspapers, they're loaded with tidbits on who's doing what where & with whom & wearing what. The only difference is their names were Lord Whatever & Lady Beautiful.

Face it - people definitely want to watch other people. If it's not royalty or movie stars, it'll be the neighbor down the street or the mayor's wife or the preacher's daughter, etc, etc.

The comment of Avlaki makes sense and by the same token, monarchy cannot be exercised in most of the countries that make up this unstable world of ours.
Lucky Scandinavians! They may be boring but they have character. I should know, since I have had a Scandinavian friend for over 57 years.
El Greco

Avlaki3 comment makes a lot of sense, unfortunately, by the same token, Monarchy cannot be applicable to most of the countries in this world. Lucky Scandinavians!
A Greek

As far as I know, the only place in which the monarchy makes sense and works is in the Scandinavian countries, where the royal family lives alongside their people without all the pomp, wealth, inequality, and silly posturing found in other nations. The monarch becomes a sort of "paterfamilias" to the whole country, a "favorite uncle" type -- or at least it seems that way. While this is neither democratic nor egalitarian, everyone I know seems comfortable with the arrangement.
Haven't I read somewhere that Danish royalty feel free to walk the streets of Copenhagen to do their shopping? Can you imagine that occurring in England, in Saudi Arabia, in Swaziland? In fact, anywhere else?
VIVA the Scandinavian countries -- a little boring at times but doing most things right!

As far as I know, the only place in which the monarchy makes sense and works is in the Scandinavian countries, where the royal family lives alongside their people without all the pomp, wealth, inequality, and silly posturing found in other nations. The monarch becomes a sort of "paterfamilias" to the whole country, a "favorite uncle" type -- or at least it seems that way. While this is neither democratic nor egalitarian, everyone I know seems comfortable with the arrangement.
Haven't I read somewhere that Danish royalty feel free to walk the streets of Copenhagen to do their shopping? Can you imagine that occurring in England, in Saudi Arabia, in Swaziland? In fact, anywhere else?
VIVA the Scandinavian countries -- a little boring at times but doing most things right!

TO: Voice of Reason

Hear hear!

To ;Voice of reason

You are indeed the voice of reason,my Lord.

IMPEACH.

Ms.Andoni,

I read your article with great interest. Although you have made some valid points, I think that you confuse our fascination with what you seem to think is an unstated desire for a monarchy and all the trappings that go with it. We Americans look at all of the pomp and circumstance that goes with Queen Elizabeth's arrival and admire it, but I think that if you polled Americans our admiration would only extend to the admiration of the British monarchy's ability to re-create a great "Fairytale". We like our system just fine. That's why Her Majesty arrives on our shores is as a foreign head of state, and not as our reigning monarch. As far as your homeland goes, I think your people can learn a lesson from our historical dealngs with royalty and their corruption and tyranny. Only your people can shake off that yoke. Then British citizens took a stand against an unjust King in places like Lexington and Concord and placed us on the road to revolution and freedom from repression. I don't know if your countries own revolution will take the same turn, but I do know that your people will have to make a choice about your continued reverence and support for a monarchy that oppresses your people and disdains anything that remotely resembles civil and human rights.

A few things stuck out here--

"Personally, I do not relate to monarchies – declared or undeclared. It is insulting to me as a human being that one person or one family should be so revered, and most significantly that they should be above accountability or even criticism."

I cannot believe that Ms. Andoni can truly be this ignorant. There is a very large difference between the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan and the Windsor dynasty of England; namely, the Windsor dynasty today is virtually a family of figureheads, the official but powerless "heads of state", while the Hashemites still wield control over the Jordanian government. Were she to venture to England, she would be able to read criticism of the royal family everywhere. For the most part, this criticism does not extend to the Queen herself, but to her largely dysfunctional family. In addition, as the Windsor dynasty stays out of the actual governance of the nation, there is not much for them to be held accountable for. In comparison to the Hashemites, the Windsors HAVE been responsible for many humanitarian achievements; Diana's work in landmines comes to mind. The Hashemites, on the other hand, also have a record to be proud of, in that they are not nearly the most oppressive dynasty in the Near East. (That distinction belongs to the house of Saud) Instead of criticizing the Brits for being "outdated" in keeping their monarchy, Ms. Andoni could criticize the "declared" (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, etc.) and "undeclared" (Egypt, Syria, Ba'athist Iraq, etc.) monarchies directly, in no uncertain terms. However, as usual in Al-Jazeera's form of "journalism", instead of asking the tough questions, she resorts to attacking a target that will not attack back out of respect for free speech: the United States and the Democratic West which she demeans. Taking the easy path is also taking the cowardly path.

"The weakening of democratic institutions in the West – in my view at least – especially in America where the executive branch has undercut the rule of law, has had a global impact as well. The democratic republic paradigm is no longer clearly defined and is no longer equated with liberty and social equity."

Once again, an Al-Jazeera "journalist" finds occasion to somehow accuse the United States, and indeed, all of the "West", with not being democratic enough. By claiming a "global impact", Ms. Andoni implicitly seeks to explain that the reason that much of the world is undemocratic is somehow the United States' fault. I find it quite ironic that a Jordanian citizen believes that they have any frame of reference as to what is the "democratic republic paradigm". Ms. Andoni might be incredulous to find out that there are actually people in this country who find Bush's undemocratic policies abhorrent. Yes, it's true. Yet, although Bush is able to push laws such as the Patriot Act, and attempt to manipulate the judicial system for political gains, he is not "King George", as the newly-elected Democratic Congress is reminding him. Rather than find fault in one of the western democracies with the most historic democratic integrity, Ms. Andoni might explore how political apathy in the Near East allows her people to be controlled by their rulers through the encouragement of anger towards the outside world.

"If some intellectuals in America dismiss royalty as an outdated tradition, it is time for them to start scrutinizing the institutions of the "Democratic West" for confusing celebrity with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela."

I find this particular statement not only stupid, but I believe it also proves that Ms. Andoni completely misunderstands the European royalty phenomenon and how it is perceived in the United States. As little more than figureheads, Americans see the royalty of England, Spain, etc. as curiosities more than anything else. Since America has not had a monarch in over 230 years, we Americans find European dynasties both curious, interesting and exotic. Ms. Andoni should not confuse this simple fondness for a political tradition that we view as a part of "quaint old Europe" with a genuine desire for a monarch in this country. American fondness for the English monarch, in particular, also stems from the general good feelings due to the special relationship that we hold with our English-speaking kin. There is also a general sense of admiration, not that the Windsor dynasty exists, or maintains its nominal "power", but that members of the English royal family have long done more with their titles and money than rest on their laurels and enjoy themselves. Philanthropic work is to be applauded, no matter who takes it upon them self to do it. In addition, the fact that English nobility is expected to have some semblance of a background in military service to the British Isles is also respectable. From Prince Philip's service in the Royal Navy, to Prince Harry's pending tour of duty in Iraq, we see this as honorable. This stems partly because in America, our "self-made" politicians and duly elected officials rarely follow this same path of service, with the exception of politicians such as John McCain and John Kerry. We are impressed because we could not imagine the Bush sisters enlisting to fight their father's war in Iraq.

Ms. Andoni has a lot to learn about American culture if she truly equates American interest in Queen Elizabeth II with reverence or even supplication for King Abdullah of Jordan. Ever since George Washington, our first president, turned down the title of King and voluntarily released his hold on power, Americans have been curious of other countries' monarchs, but this is simply that -- curiosity. Having a Queen might be fine for England, and we might watch from afar with interest, but Americans do not submit to absolutist rulers, Bush be damned.

I admire the British Royal Family simply as a long-lived institution and set of traditions. I also revere my Revolutionary War ancestors who fought to free us from that long-lived institution. Now that the British Monarchy represents no threat to our liberties, I see them much as any other venerable British institution, from many of which the US has obtained much that is good in our own culture.
As for Hollywood royalty, when they stray from mainly providing entertainment, I respect them less and view their pronouncements with the skepticism they deserve. Sheryl Crow's recent toilet paper limitation suggestion is an emblematic case in point. Others diminish themselves by other behaviors. Mel Gibson comes to mind. No worries!

Heros/celebrities appeal to something socio-eonomically logical in the human psyche. Recognition brings power, and tools like dynasty extend that power.

Recognition by itself is indeed no guide to the suitability of any leader, almost to the extent that in a republic it may be appropriate to automatically disqualify prospective politicians seeking to leverage their celebrity and/or family relations from office.

A possible counterpoint to this is presented specifically WRT the Queen of England. The political system can be engineered to provide useful power to the hereditary/celebrity, without unbalancing the republic via systems of checks and balance. This of course requires due diligence by the people of the republic to keep them working...

"The weakening of democratic institutions in the West – in my view at least – especially in America where the executive branch has undercut the rule of law"

Thank you for the bright neon sign on your forehead that declares you to be an ignorant political hack! You seem to know nothing about the "rule of law", just what you hear and read in the "HATE BUSH" media. Repeating lies is a time-honored tactic of propagandists -- you're not even good at it. Study your Nazi teachers to learn how to get really good at the repeated lie.

I don't know if I agree with the Author about American's reverence for Monarchs. I rarely if every hear anybody discuss the British or any other royal family unless there is a state visit. I do agree that Hollywood stars are revered when most probably are the type of people you would never want as a roomate much less a friend.

I do however tire of people from repressive countries always trying to slip in a dig that any problems around the world are no doubt the fault of America. If Jordon isn't a true democracy it is because the royal family has done whatever they could to keep it that way. The Jordanian people have that decision to make for themselves. The fact that Bush wants the line item veto had nothing to do with the inability of citizens in the Middle east to realize that as long as they let their governments fool and distract them with issues like the Palestinians, the U.S. etc... which keeps their anger focused outside rather than at their own govt. where it belongs, they will never have change.

I wish every American understood Ms Andoni's comments, but I fear most don't know what she is talking about. Worship of false heros is impoverishing the very idea of America as is Bush's retreat from the rule of law, as she writes. Teachers should take this piece into the classroom for discussion by every student.

monarchy is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Love live monarchy....oops i meant capitalism

Ms Adoni,

Thank you for your interesting comment. There is a book you may enjoy on the topic by historian Edmund Morgan: "Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America".

Lamis Adoni,

As a very ordinary U.S. citizen, I am not close to the wheels of power and cannot know much with certainty about the machinations of the U.S. government. But I found your article very interesting--especially the comments about the weakening of democracy in America, where "the executive branch has undercut the rule of law".

I worry about what I too perceive to be the weakening of democracy here and so your comments resonated with me. Rightly or wrongly, I see the key to it to be the corruption of the electoral and governing processes to be primarily driven by the corrupting influence of large corporate wealth and power. On the national level, I believe that a few large industries with international operations (e.g., oil, auto, etc.) have extraordinary access to government power.

Because election campaigns depend so much on expensive media access, I believe both political parties are extremely dependent on corporate largess. It's said that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Politicians are like pipers in this regard.

The concentration of news media in the hands of a few large "infotainment" corporations filters and weakens our news coverage a great deal also, I believe. (I like the Washington Post, though.)

Last, there appears to be a "revolving door" through which former corporate executives become high-placed government bureaucrats, serve their former employer's special interest exceedingly well, and then retire from government and return to corporate executive roles at inflated salaries. Our current president seems to have had a number of these from the oil industry in his white house staff and various government agencies. Our President and Vice-President both have this kind of oil executive background as well.

I believe these three factors are the biggest threats to democracy here. But our current infatuation with celebrities probably helps the process as you say. I think Queen Elizabeth is probably just another celebrity here though, as I don't see her as a real monarch--she has only symbolic power. Isn't Britain really ruled by the Prime Minister and Parliament?

Thanks for your engaging and provocative commentary--I hope to see more.

The Queen of England, who came to the throne during Winston Churchill's second tenure as Prime Minister, has a special place in the affections of Americans. It is one not held by royals from any other country, and certainly not by any Arab monarch (though Jordan's King Hussein was widely admired in his day).

There are, it is true, many Americans whose relationship with celebrity in general is somewhat unhealthy, and even some who have a fascination with British royalty in particular. America, though, is a big country. There are many millions more of us who think the idea of having a queen is pretty silly, but who don't feel in necessary to advertise this view, especially not when the British queen is our guest.

Hollywood Royalty should not be taken seriously. The Monarchy has been doing quite well for more than a thousand years and is not hurting a damned soul. But then I'm a Royalist and an indipendant thinker.

Ms. Andoni,

Comparing a royal who is in that position due to history, family and the laws of the state as the English queen and your king are is a very different thing from a pop star who is admired like royalty. Its one thing to claim the position by law, its another to have it proclaimed by an admiring society. You only need to look at Britany Spears and other "stars" who made it into the hearts of millions only to act in ways that made those millions turn the other way. Its a popularity contest I'll admit but by its nature it is democratic. The queen of England or your King and princes do not need an admiring million to maintain their position, just an army ready to defend their positions. A very different thing. Apples and Oranges.