cthia wrote:The Crown represents the people. The people are "the many, the many who are more important than the few, or the one."
So, the Crown's image should never be tarnished in any way. And the family's business should be kept in the closet for the longevity and the honor of the Crown.
Agreed.
I am simply saying that I think it is much better to accept the Crown, even when not wanting it and then manufacture a story that "excuses" the abdication.
"Aww, he really wanted to serve, but his plate just wasn't clean."
Disagreed. That story can come out later as a fraud, which is worse in the long run. Or maybe not even later: it might be an open secret that polite conversation simply avoids. Kind of like my dad when he sleeps watching a movie and, when we wake him, he says he's simply reflecting on what's been going on... sure.
I personally think that the image of the Crown would best served by selecting the monarch who really wants to serve, not force someone who doesn't want it, for however long. But what do I know? I don't live in a monarchy and never have.
In other words, if the Crown is like a marriage, then the Crown wants to be the one to tell the press that the Crown "broke up with" or "dumped" or "divorced" the heir. And not vice versa.
I don't agree with the analogy either. A marriage implies two, but the Crown and the monarch are the same while the monarch reigns. The Crown can't refuse the monarch, the people can't vote the monarch out of office or recall them. It would be like a one-person company saying sales really wants the deal but engineering doesn't: it's a nice allegory of the different competing responsibilities, but it's still one person making the decision.
A little bit of Harry and Megan. Ok, ok, a lot of "Harry and Megan."
That's different, because that one wasn't a single entity. We had Harry-and-Megan, Elizabeth-II-and-the-Crown, and the tabloids. At least.