What do we need royals for anyway?
As Britain's royal family tries to resolve its latest crisis and find a new role for Prince Harry and Meghan, commentators, including those outside the UK, examine the future of royal dynasties.
Like the Church, the royals provide a sense of security in times of uncertainty, Svenska Dagbladet believes:
“They're there when we need them, in national disasters or crises, as a symbol of our grief and of the fact that despite everything we still have something in common. ... The best thing that can happen to royal families is unrest in the world and in their own country. The more uncertainty there is, the stronger their position becomes. Take 93-year-old Queen Elizabeth: she still has the same hairstyle and facial expression as in the days when German bombers flew over London. The British may be saying goodbye to Europe, but the queen will go on sitting where she sits now.”
The people's favour is essential
Jyllands-Posten turns its gaze to the Swiss ski resort of Verbier, where the family of the Danish Crown Prince is currently staying, ostensibly to improve the four children's language skills. However the eldest, Prince Christian, has frankly stated that they were there to enjoy the skiing. Jyllands-Posten sees the family walking on thin ice:
“If the royal family wants to stay on the people's good side - and let's not forget that this is its bread and butter - it will have to show that it's there for the people and for Denmark's interests. Queen Margrethe masters this role with confidence, which goes a long way to explaining why the royal family is so popular with the Danish people and why anti-royalism has such a hard time. Nevertheless this is a difficult balancing act that can quickly run afoul if those who foot the bill get the impression that they're just funding a clan of jet-setters.”