Because they are the same group of celebrity-worshipping people who revere people who see themselves as somehow better than the rest of us. That's a human weakness unrelated to one's tribal identity.

Only the Hawaiian people had a monarchy of those three you mentioned. In fact, when the US took the Philippines from the Spanish, they promised democracy to the people, which they were finally forced to grant reluctantly in 1946. (For what that was worth back then.)

Otherwise you are so right about the USA, where there's plenty of guilt and hypocrisy to go 'round. As a former teacher (1975-2015), I know that most of my students and their parents whose version of America might as well have come from sources like "Leave it to Beaver," World War Two propaganda movies, and the aforementioned Walt Disney. They'd never heard of the Ludlow Massacre, the Tulsa Massacre, the Filipino War, or even Wounded Knee (either version) unless they heard about it from teachers who used more than an approved history textbook to introduce them to our complicated story. And many of them didn't like knowing about episodes like that.

As Slam_Bradley said above, authoritarianism is hardly anathema for many Americans, as we have seen vividly illustrated these past few years. 

Back in the late 70s, Jimmy Carter was vilified everywhere for carrying his own suit bag slung over his shoulder when coming off Air Force One, much as Obama drew untold criticism for wearing a light brown suit to a press conference. And in both cases, the press joined in rather than appraising the absolute idiocy of the reactions.

Meanwhile, Reagan and his wife were as close to American royalty as possible, with her determination that the White House needed new, expensive dinnerware seen as the kind of classy move that separated them from the unsophisticated sweater-wearing Carters. She got her dinnerware, at a cost of a thousand dollars a setting (that cost nearly $700,000 in today's money), from private donors to the White House Historical Association, which also ponied up eight hundred grand to spruce up the Reagans' living quarters. Because the President can't really be a common man.Thus, too, the endless fascination with likes of the Kennedys, the Kardashians and assorted lesser "royals" from all nations.

We've come way too far from praising George Washington, the so-called American Cincinnatus, and other men of the people to be our rulers.


For recent evidence, see the former president's time in (and out of) office.

Queen Elizabeth was head of the Commonwealth, not the British Empire. My own country (New Zealand) is a constitutional monarchy where King Charles is sovereign and head of state, but our executive, legislature and judiciary are separate from the UK. Our ties to the UK are symbolic in nature (the Union Jack on the corner of the flag, the Queen's image on the $20 note and all coins, a holiday to mark the Queen's birthday, etc.) The Monarchy has little influence on our day to day life. New Zealanders follow the news about the Royal family, show interest in major events like weddings, etc., have their favorite family members (my sister loves Kate Middleton), and show up in droves whenever they visit our shores, but we don't consider ourselves the Queen's subjects. Legally, we aren't Britons anymore. And even Britons aren't subjects anymore. They're citizens. New Zealanders aren't as headstrong about becoming a republic as Australians (for example), and there are numerous reasons for that, but I will say, that of the countries that left the Commonwealth after Elizabeth ascended to the throne, I don't know any that had a problem with the Queen herself. The countries that wish to be independent of the Commonwealth want to sever their ties with their colonial past and view the present day Monarchy as a symbol of the imperialist British Empire. 

The Commonwealth is a different beast from the Empire. The Commonwealth is a free association of independent states under the British Monarch while the Empire was made up of dominions, mandates, colonies, and other territories. When the Commonwealth was first established, there were a number of British politicians who hoped it would preserve British power, but it was clear from the outset that it wouldn't. It was actually Queen Elizabeth who forged a new direction for the Commonwealth, and I think most people would agree that she did a remarkable job of holding the Commonwealth together. 

Regarding the wars, the independent dominions, as I believed they were called back then, chose to join both wars. They could have remained neutral, as Ireland did in World War II. The dominions had strong cultural and political ties to Britain at the time, but they also economic self-interests. In New Zealand's case, exports to the British market made up the majority of its economy.

I do want to note that I say these things as someone from one of the "white dominions" that were treated much differently from non-white member states. And even within my country, there are Maori who are still aggrieved by our colonial past. 

As for what the Queen represented, she was someone who people turned to in times of crisis. It's been my experience that regardless of partisanship, that people turn to their leaders trying times of crisis for comfort or support. They expect to see their leaders doing something even if the situation seems hopeless. She was a very good leader in that respect and brought comfort to a great many people. I do think her image has changed somewhat over the past 30 years. She was often painted as the villain while Diana was alive. The overwhelming sentiment, however, is that people genuinely liked her. Which was a large part of the reason why Commonwealth members were happy to keep her as their Monarch. 

I don't mean to come across a royalist. I don't have strong opinions on monarchies one way or the other. I support democracy, but I don't think being a republic means a country is governed better. That's up to the leaders. 

As he usually does. Quite a wordsmith.

commond wrote

Regarding the wars, the independent dominions, as I believed they were called back then, chose to join both wars. They could have remained neutral, as Ireland did in World War II. The dominions had strong cultural and political ties to Britain at the time, but they also economic self-interests. In New Zealand's case, exports to the British market made up the majority of its economy.

You are absolutely right, of course, and I should have reread my initial statement before posting it. It was the four (of five) Dominions -- Australia, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand -- that instituted conscription of their citizens and for all of the reasons you mention. Touché, my friend. However, the rest of the Empire had no such privilege. India, for instance, was simply told that it was at war with Germany, but there was also no formal conscription. 

I do want to note that I say these things as someone from one of the "white dominions" that were treated much differently from non-white member states. And even within my country, there are Maori who are still aggrieved by our colonial past.

Point noted and well taken on behalf of the Maoris, Kenyans and Nigerians, to name a couple of others.

As for what the Queen represented, she was someone who people turned to in times of crisis. It's been my experience that regardless of partisanship, that people turn to their leaders trying times of crisis for comfort or support. They expect to see their leaders doing something even if the situation seems hopeless. She was a very good leader in that respect and brought comfort to a great many people. 

We do love the notion of the unflappable leader in any circumstance, political and otherwise, don't we? (Too bad we don't vote for more of those types here, anyway.) Not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as we are not using that as an excuse not to step up ourselves.

However, the Queen's service during the war is exemplary, and analogous to service here in the States by the sons of both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and by sons of other prominent Americans. The three sons of Harry Hopkins, FDR's closest advisor, served in WW2; 18-year-old Marine Stephen was killed in the Pacific. Not enough of that sense of responsibility around these days.

We have only to look at the previous administration's disrespect, ignorance and crudity to demonstrate just how crucial the importance of tradition and ritual are.

I do think her image has changed somewhat over the past 30 years. She was often painted as the villain while Diana was alive. The overwhelming sentiment, however, is that people genuinely liked her. Which was a large part of the reason why Commonwealth members were happy to keep her as their Monarch.

This is a bit of a puzzlement to me. On the one hand, she is revered for serving as the exemplar of British values (and here I'm essentially quoting a British commentator I heard this morning on TV): stoicism, self-control, privacy, and reserve. Fine, but then when she displays just those values on the death of her daughter-in-law, her subjects howled in protest, essentially begging for her to break down in public, given that we had long before that descended into the world of hyperbolized displays of public emotion, including grief. Listen, I got no dog in that celebrity cage-match, but is it too much to ask for some consistency? By me, she should have served as a rudder, counter-balancing the ridiculously histrionic response of the British public, or at least the portion that wanted to drop their cheap bouquets on the sidewalk in front of Buckingham Palace. She showed the admirably stiff upper lip that we all regard as so very British and got crucified for being cold and not rending her metaphorical garments like the rest of the celebrity-worshippers. I was with her on that one.

I support democracy, but I don't think being a republic means a country is governed better. That's up to the leaders.

No, and hope I didn't imply that, because right now, as far as a democratic republic is concerned, I and my countrymen are living in a glass house. (And it ain't built of safety glass, either.)

Bingo.

Very convenient for the royals to go all apolitical when convenient.