Time: Before the last two centuries, royal babies were the dominant players of human history. Their births were auspicious occasions, attended by astrologers and mendicants, court intrigues and elaborate sacrifices to the gods. The fate of kingdoms — and all the hapless souls living within them — hinged on the successful issue of these infants, who were born with a divine right to lord over others.
Countries and empires depended on the existence of heirs, well, male heirs, for their continued stability. After all, from antiquity to the Enlightenment, disputes about royal babies sparked myriad wars of succession—the tiny British Isles experienced at least half a dozen of them on their own. The remains of millions of forgotten peasants whose blood was spilled in the name of some presumptive heir still lie beneath the planet’s empty bogs, deserts and fields. It can be said without too much hyperbole that the world’s obsession with royal babies is built on a bed of skulls thousands of years deep.
So forgive me for looking with bemusement at yesterday’s arrival of the Prince of Cambridge. Of course, it’s churlish to speak sourly of a guiltless, newborn child. And, yes, he’s unlikely to provoke any violent battles for the throne, not least because the British monarchy now functions far more like a theme park populated by an awkward, endangered species — Booker Prize-winner Hillary Mantel likened the royals to pandas, “ill-adapted to any modern environment” — than the locus of centuries of undeserved privilege and imperial power. But all 21st century human beings who witnessed the#RoyalBaby circus should feel more than a bit disturbed.
Categories: Europe
Well, what about tradition? Countries with Presidents that have little to say, such as Germany for instance, would do better to have a King or Queen. They could save themselves the election expenses of a new President. (ok and spend it on the Royal Family instead).