What are the burdensome duties of the British monarchy?

Of all the remaining monarchies, the British monarchy is perhaps the powerful today. Having survived the revolutions that shocked other major European countries, the Windsor family is still powerful compared to Scandinavian cycling kings or operetta princes and countries such as Monte Carlo. It is true that today it has much more limited powers than in the past, but it must be remembered that this occurred because it was able to grant them on its own initiative and not because it was forced. 

In other words, after the initial shock of the Cromwell revolution, the monarch on duty has always saved his skin by granting powers and jumping before being pushed, as happened elsewhere, often with bloody results. This explains why the abbreviation HM or Her is still stamped on English warships (in our case) Majesty Ship or to precede the name of ministries such as HM Treasury, Home Office, etc. The Queen also enjoys a prerogative that so far has never used because double-edged. But in the event of a serious political crisis has the ability to cold torpedo the government on duty and give the assignment to a premiere of his own liking even if obviously this will then have to deal with Parliament.

A move to be made with great attention in extreme cases, because it puts the sovereign in the embarrassing situation of directly entering the political arena with the risks it entails.

The management of British monarchy involves serious burdens. Prince Harry and his consort Meghan Markle apparently found unsustainable to play their part. The reason is very obvious such as too much media curiosity, too much discipline, too many behavioral sacrifices. The two young persons have thus decided, provoking the wrath of the royal house, to announce the decision to want to become bourgeois and divide their time between the United Kingdom and North America to "earn their living" with a trade. Buckingham Palace took the hit, but made it clear that the decision is final and Queen also supported their decision of transition.

For the former actress Meghan Markle what initially seemed to be a way of increasing popularity, managing it in her own way, proved to be an impossible mission. The British Monarchy is at the heart of the country's institutions and has a very demanding and limiting side for those who play it. The Queen and Prince Philip cut their commitments only a few years after copiously exceeding 90 years and showed an uncommon sense of duty and self-denial. 

They are returning their privilege with a strong full-time commitment at home and around the world. A "sacrifice" recognized by the people. Prince Charles, although mocked by some bands of conservatives who consider him too environmentalist and despite the failure of his marriage to Diana, he is an indefatigable and workaholic worker who also chairs dozens of charities, in addition to the growing public commitments he must take on. In short, who embodies the institutions must behave, that is, must be able to behave according to a strict label. It must be said, the role of the wife of William, Duchess of Cambridge Kate, perhaps with little imagination and with arid diligence, has so far played without missteps.

The problem of the Monarchy derives from its visibility, which, besides obviously involving honors, imposes serious burdens. The illustrious precedents of those who have struggled to remain force into this bodice are not lacking. The case of Harry and Meghan recalls that of Edward VIII, who even abdicated in 1936 in order to marry and live with Wallis Simpson, a multi-divorced American woman. A love story contrary to the real label of the time, but fortunately ended in the best way, seen in hindsight, given that the couple was suspicious of Nazi sympathies and from the throne could have influenced the fate of European history. Then, there came Margaret Elizabeth's sister, intelligent and graceful, nonconformist, who inaugurated the season of glamor, a difficult art, on the watershed between irreverent fun and regal behavior. The role of royals is not easy that maintains the admiration of people who are hungry for gossip, avoiding the criticism of the abuse of their position at the taxpayer's expense. 

If we talk about Lady Diana, she was full of good feelings but at the same time rebellious and with a megastar profile of cinema in a world increasingly hungry and stunned by celebrities. To land on Meghan, ex-actress, emancipated, with African-American blood, intelligent, skilled, but perhaps too determined to manage her image on a collision course with the appearances of real duties. 

The problem of the Monarchy, which was once the cusp that synthesized power, fame, glamor, style, and charm, today comes from the world of celebrities who have as much visibility, by virtue of the fame and great wealth of film superstars or multi-billionaire oligarchs with availability as the GDP of entire countries. The British Monarchy remains with a very high profile but is no longer the summit. For this reason, in recent decades, it has drawn more and more sap from the world of entertainment with which it increasingly needs to mix. For its part, the monarchy is becoming a commercial icon that influences of having the fashion products by wearing luxury dress or accessory. 

But this osmosis is dangerous, given that the Monarchy is a crucial institution of the Queen, who has her feet firmly on the ground. She is perfectly conscious, and she has made her weigh on various occasions. Elizabeth knows very well how easy it can be to lose respect for the country. After the filthy sex scandal of Prince Andrew, pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's snack companion, who has dealt a heavy jolt at the Royal House, the growing risk is that people will start to open their eyes and does the math wondering if it is worth continue to maintain the bandwagon of royal relatives.