The American Constitution Part II

Last week, a baby was born in London in the private wing of one of our large teaching hospitals. The event would have been unremarkable had it not been for the identity of the child, who is now the heir to the heir to the heir to the throne of the United Kingdom. Put simply, after Elizabeth II, it is likely we get Charles III, William IV and George VII.

Now, I am not hard-boiled when it comes to the birth of a baby. The days when my children were born remain clear and memorable. And if I am ever lucky enough to become a grandfather, I am sure I will feel the same. It is the most special event, but one which most of us experience in private.

The new royal parents weren’t given much privacy. The world’s press waited outside the Lindo Wing of St. Mary’s Hospital for more than 48 hours. But for what? A picture, brief comments from the parents and that was that. Yet for those 48 hours, the news media hardly reported anything else. Were they bothered by the latest victims in the Syrian civil war, were they interested in new Middle East negotiations leading to peace talks, were countless other disasters or crises mentioned? These questions are, of course rhetorical.

My curiosity was piqued by the vast number of American reporters and photographers sent to London to cover the event. So, taking courage in both eyes and ears, I watched CNN and Fox News. As a lawyer, I am meant to have “the gift of the gab” but I would not know how to talk about nothing for 48 minutes, let alone 48 hours. These intrepid reporters talked hot air every time I switched to these channels. I feel sorrow and pity for what the American public was fed.

As for the interviews conducted, one could not fail to get the impression that the Americans who spoke were looking for a revolution. They wanted their own royals and they wanted them now!

I was in Miami in 2010 when we held our most recent General Election. I watched the television coverage on CNN as David Cameron went to Buckingham Palace to “kiss hands” with the Queen. The naivety of the commentator was pretty shocking, even by CNN standards. “Does he really kiss her hands?” And the one I loved the best was when Cameron was driven back to Downing Street, with one security car and outrider in attendance. “Where’s the motorcade?” was the scream.

Now, we Brits and you Americans enjoy very different cultures. Most Brits like the royal family but the numbers of my compatriots who yell and swoon in their presence is small. I cannot believe how Americans go completely crackers when a royal is nearby. Heavens only knows what would happen to Kate were she soon to visit New York. The city would come to a complete stop.

So, in the light of the demands from those Americans staying on this side of the pond, I wonder if there is a fundamental problem with the American Constitution? Should the Founding Fathers have kept to the suggestion made among their number that they be ruled by a king and a hereditary monarchy? If you don’t believe they considered offering Washington the title of King George, read the Federalist Papers!

In these days of clever bank instruments and ruthless hedge funds, perhaps a way can be found to market or franchise our royals. I doubt that there would be much of a market in Europe. After all, except for Germany, the countries in the Euro zone are flat bust. But I am reliably informed that American corporations have trillions of dollars available for investment. If, for example, we leased Price Harry out for five years, our GDP could increase by 0.5%, a significant number.

What I think is better is for the American media to calm down, stop behaving like swarming, angry bees and to look realistically at the institution of monarchy. If so, they would conclude that their system of government has worked for more than two centuries and the American public is well served by it. Alternatively, have a referendum in USA and see if Americans would like their own royalty. But please stop making ours look like a circus show.