Can a monarch save the European project?
Subjects of Her Majesty the Queen Elisabeth II will this week celebrate the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.
Hundreds of thousands of people are espected to owerflow into the streets of Londons to attend the event; millions will watch it on television and in a first-of-its-kind program specially broadcasted by YouTube. Taking advantage of the nice wheather, many Britons will organise traditional street parties in order to express joy for the event and show support to the Royal family.
While democratic institutions seem in crisis all over Europe, unable to mobilise people and to face the challenges of a changing world, this joyful event is a clear reminder that probably the only way in order to re-launch the European project is to accept an unelected monarch as the Head of the Union.
Only twice in her two-thousand-year history Europe was unified as a political actor and in both occasions it was under a king: first under Charlemagne, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, and then under Charles V.
Contrary to Charlemagne, who conquered Central Europe with his army, the case of Charles V shows that it was possible to unify many different realms not with the power of the sword, but through diplomatic and dynastic arrangements (and some bribes as well). So form an historical perspectives we can easily say that monarchy has proven to be the best solution for the peaceful unification of Europe
There would be many problems in order to implement such a reform, but probably it would be easier to win some hard-to-die anti-eruopean resistance through the monarchy than through another process of constitutional reform involving 27 different states.
The main issue would be to select the reigning house, with indeed the Windsor claiming the sought after title, along with many other royal families across Europe. It would be hard to win the competition, especially if we think what the Italian Savoia have done since they lost they crown.
Possibly they could put up a series of arranged marriages, involving all the heir to the European thrones, so that at the end there will be one lucky child inheriting all the titles: it would probably take more than one hundred years, which is slightest thing in comparison to the speed of the democratic process of enlargement and unification.
A European King (or Queen) would probably stop all the debate about “who can speask for Europe“, once and for all.
A single issue would probably arise fom this constituitional change: the lack of accountability of an un-elected king (or queen).
This is not a new allegation for the European institutions, so the European King (or Queen) can easily deal with that. Also because the first to move this allegations are the British conservatives: they found impossible to live under and they always waffle against the un-elected, un-democratic President of the European Commission, but they never move the same critics to their Head of the State (equally un-electedand un-democratic).
So, God save the King of Europe!
