By Steve Siciliano
Any American with access to a television, radio or the internet is now undoubtedly aware that a royal birth occurred last week in England. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I didn’t even know that Prince Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge were expecting.
The extensive news coverage afforded in our country of the blessed event across the pond is a good indication of to what extent many citizens of The United States are captivated by Britain’s monarchy. I find this fascination ironic as our founding forefathers to a man had a deep distaste for King George III, Great Britain’s reigning sovereign during the time of the revolution. Compounding this incongruity is the fact that the royal couple decided to name their little bundle of regal joy after that irascible old coot.
There is little doubt that there is a fascination, perhaps even an obsession, with Britain’s royal family in this country. This quite possibly is due to the fact that Americans would love to love their country’s leaders but find that somewhat impossible to do after they’ve elected them. The machinations of political office have a way of transforming even the most lovable into the unlovable.
Perhaps what we need in this country is royalty of our own—a fatherly king or motherly queen who remain distanced from politics; a titular figurehead who is elected every four years along with the president and vice president. Personally I would cast my vote for the most Falstaffian of candidates—someone who loves drinking copious amounts of beer and wine and who is not afraid to be photographed with a barbecue sauced smeared face at a county fair.
The hundred million or so in yearly tax payer dollars that it would take to maintain the sovereign would certainly be a small price to pay for not having to live vicariously through Britain’s royalty. I imagine that manufacturing one or two fewer cruise missiles per year would free up the funds.