【美国人 20120206】女王万岁！
本帖最后由 woikuraki 于 2012-3-31 15:30 编辑【中文标题】女王万岁！
【原文标题】Long Live the Queen!
【登载媒体】美国人
【原文作者】John Steele Gordon
【原文链接】http://www.american.com/archive/2012/february/long-live-the-queen
知识分子通常会公开谴责对于皇族的爱，但是英国人如果没能充分利用他们这项独特的国家财产，他们会发疯的。
1952年2月6日，国王乔治六世的突然去世，让一个25岁的年轻女人登上了大不列颠的王座。现在，她已经执政了60年，除了她的曾曾祖母维多利亚女王在位63.5年之外，她比任何一位英国君主的执政时间都要长。年届85岁的伊丽莎白二世是坐在英国王座上年龄最大的人，已经有至少12届首相为她效劳，白宫也已经轮换了12位主人。现今在世的人已经记不起英国在其它人统治下的样子。
英国的君主制是一项不同寻常的历史遗产，是西方世界中最古老的制度之一。而且，与其它现存的君主制不同，英国的君主制依然在其耀眼的光环下掌控着权力。
尽管大英帝国已经是一个遥远的回忆，但女王依然在至少16个国家当政，如果从联邦共同体的角度来看，与之有关系的国家多达几十个。她住在三座宫殿中（温莎堡、白金汉宫、爱丁堡的荷里路德宫），其它5座宫殿是博物馆（汉普顿宫和伦敦塔）、国会大厦（威斯敏斯特宫）和其他皇室家族成员的住所（圣詹姆斯宫和肯新顿宫）。此外，女王还有两个私人住所（苏格兰的巴尔的摩和诺福克的桑德林汉姆）。
皇家的艺术品收藏如果被放在博物馆中，将是世界历史上最伟大的展览。女王个人收藏的珠宝（不包括皇冠上的珠宝）举世无双。
尽管女王几乎没有常规的政治权力，但根据她的加冕誓言，她是英国宪法的最终保证人。在白芝浩（译者注：英国著名经济学家和新闻工作者，著有《英国宪法》）著名的构想中，她有“三项权力：被咨询权、激励权和警告权”。她定期与首相会面，他们之间的谈话不对第三人开放，我们相信她对首相的政治决策有很大的影响力。
像英国这样一个民主的国家怎么会容忍如此不民主的制度，即让一个家族成为国家最高的决策机构？我想，答案很简单，因为它运作良好。它甚至让英国具备了某些优势，自然值得保留了。
每个国家都需要一个领导人，或者至少每个国家都有一个领导人。大部分民主国家遵循以下两种模式之一：美国和英国。前者的国家领导机构与政府领导机构合二为一，它通过选举产生，既有实际权力又代表国家形象。被选中的人有固定的任期，直到其被调任或任期结束为止。
在英国，这两个机构是分开的，政府的领导人是首相，由议会选举产生。如果国家是共和制，议会还要选举产生国家领导人，通常是某个政治生涯结束之后的无足轻重的角色。（想想德国总统是谁？我反正不知道。）
但如果这个国家是君主制，那么国家领导人就会凭借其皇族身份被全世界知晓，并引起广泛关注。人类对于皇家身份有根深蒂固的偏爱。想想去年电视转播威廉王子与凯特•米德尔顿的婚礼时，有100亿人关注这个节目，其中很多人在半夜起床打开电视。
当女王在1983年访问加利福尼亚时，天气异常糟糕，但还是有100万人冒风顶雨在街上等着看女王的车队。会有多少人在雨天里等待那个不知道叫什么名字的德国总统？有多少位父亲会把女儿叫做“小公主”？所有慈善业内人士都了解，任何一场慈善活动中，只要有皇室成员出席——即使不那么重要的皇室，比如迈克尔王子、肯特王子或者格洛斯特公爵——活动必将成功。
知识分子通常会公开谴责人类对于皇族的爱，但是英国人如果没能充分利用他们这项独特的国家财产，他们会发疯的。皇族不能凭空而生，至少当今社会没有可能。欧洲最近的一个皇家王朝是成立于1831年的比利时国王。伊丽莎白二世女王秉承了一千年前的皇族血统，她的祖先们的就职和死亡标志着英国历史的纪元。她是不列颠的化身，她代表的历史可以追溯到阿尔弗雷德大帝（译者注：南英格兰的盎克-鲁萨克森国王，因抵抗丹麦人的入侵而闻名于世，并因此成为惟一一个被授予“大帝”名号的英格兰皇帝）。除了知识分子以外的普通人，都能明白其含义。
有些人谴责皇族的开销，英国每年供养皇族的费用是6000万美元，相当于这个“王权之岛”上的居民人均1美元。那么，如果废除君主制，费用会降低多少呢？或许一点也不会降低，因为大部分的钱都被用来维护宫殿和艺术收藏品，这些费用无论如何都会发生的。如果温莎堡从皇家住宅改为博物馆，维护的成本会降低吗？
然而英国皇家所带来的经济效益却是惊人的，它所创造的旅游收入足以弥补其开支。你如果想亲眼见识伦敦塔地窖中皇冠上的宝石，你必须要排长长的队伍才能瞥上一眼。皇宫外的换岗仪式和列队行走每年为伦敦吸引无数的游客——如果居住在白金汉宫中的是大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合共和国的总统，还会有这些仪式吗？我很怀疑。即使活动继续，也失去了原有的意义，变成了纯粹娱乐性的盛装行走。
Cecil Woodham-Smith在她的年轻维多利亚女王传记中写道：“英国人希望在国家的领导机构中有一位君主，实际上，英国对君主制度的效忠是值得其他欧洲统治者羡慕的事情。但是，英国君主必须遵守法律和英国各项制度，他们的形象是宪法的守护神。”
伊丽莎白二世女王严格奉行了这一切。英国人民——她的子民——在今年将利用她钻石庆典（译者注：当政60年的庆典）的机会表达感激之情。与此同时，大西洋另一边伟大共和国的效忠子民将会满怀崇敬、困惑，甚至还有一些嫉妒的心情，观看母国的这项庆典。
原文：
Intellectuals tend to snobbishly decry any love for royalty, but the British would be crazy not to exploit their unique national asset.
On February 6, 1952, the sudden death of King George VI brought a young woman of 25 to the throne of Great Britain. She has now reigned for 60 years, longer than any other British monarch except her great great grandmother Queen Victoria, who reigned for 63½ years. At 85, Elizabeth II is the oldest person to have ever sat on the British throne and she has been served by no fewer than 12 prime ministers, while 12 men have occupied the White House in that time. Few people alive today remember any other British sovereign.
The British monarchy is a remarkable relic, one of the oldest institutions in the Western world. And, unlike most other surviving monarchies, it still reigns in considerable splendor.
While the British Empire is a distant memory, the Queen still reigns in no fewer than 16 countries and, as head of the Commonwealth, is connected to dozens more. She lives in three palaces (Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, and the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh). The five other palaces are museums (Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London), the Houses of Parliament (Westminster Palace), and housing for other members of the royal family (St. James’s Palace and Kensington Palace). In addition, the Queen maintains two private residences (Balmoral in Scotland and Sandringham in Norfolk).
The royal art collection, were it in a museum, would be among the greatest museums in the world. The Queen’s personal collection of jewelry (separate from the crown jewels) has no equal.
And while the Queen has little day-to-day political power, by her coronation oath, she is the ultimate guarantor of the British Constitution. She has, in Walter Bagehot’s famous formulation, “three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn.” She meets regularly with her prime minister and, while these conversations are strictly between the two of them, she is believed to have considerable influence.
How does a democratic country such as Britain justify something that seems so undemocratic as vesting in one family the highest office of state? The answer, I think, lies in the fact that, simply, it works. It also brings Britain several advantages that are certainly worth preserving.
Every country needs a head of state, or at least every country has one. Most democratic countries today follow one of two models: the American or the British. In the former, the office of head of state is combined with the office of head of government, and that office, both powerful and ceremonial, is filled by election. The person elected serves for only a limited time before needing a fresh mandate or meeting term limits.
In the British system the two offices are separated, with the head of government—a prime minister—selected by parliament. If the country is a republic, parliament selects the head of state as well, usually a nonentity at the end of his or her political career. (Quick: who’s the president of Germany? I don’t know either.)
But if the country is a monarchy, the head of state is known throughout the world and commands wide attention just by virtue of being royal. There is a deep, atavistic interest in royalty in the human race. Just consider the number—well above a billion—who watched the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton last year on television, many having to rise at ridiculous hours in order to do so.
When the Queen visited California in 1983, the weather was terrible. But a million people waited in the driving rain in order to watch as a car carrying her drove by. How many would have gotten drenched to see a car carrying what’s-his-name, the president of Germany? How many fathers call their young daughters “princess”? Every charity official knows that the presence of royalty at an event—even relatively minor royalty, such as Princess Michael of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester—will guarantee that event’s success.
Intellectuals tend to snobbishly decry this human love for royalty, but the British would be crazy not to exploit their unique national asset. Royalty cannot be created, after all, at least not in modern times. The most recent royal dynasty to be established in Europe is that of the King of the Belgians, founded in 1831. Queen Elizabeth II carries the royal blood of a thousand years in her veins; her ancestors’ accessions and deaths mark the eras of British history. She is the living symbol of what Britain is and has been since the time of Alfred the Great. The ordinary people, if not the intellectuals, understand that.
Some people decry the expenses of royalty, which in Britain run about $60 million a year—one dollar for each inhabitant of that “Sceptered Isle.” But how much of that cost would disappear if the monarchy were abolished? In fact, virtually none, for most of the expenses are for maintaining the palaces and collections, and those expenses would go on regardless. Would Windsor Castle cost any less if it were wholly a museum and not also a royal residence?
And the economic benefits of British royalty are considerable. The tourist dollars generated by royalty, and aspects of it, more than cover the expenses. Want to see the crown jewels in their vault at the Tower of London? You have to stand in a very long line for a very short glimpse. Would the changing of the guard and trooping the colors ceremonies—which draw tens of thousands of tourists to London—continue if the occupant of Buckingham Palace was a president of the United Republics of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I doubt it. Even if they did, they would be empty of meaning, a mere pageant with a void in the center.
Cecil Woodham-Smith, in her great biography of the young Queen Victoria, wrote that, “The British nation prefers to have a sovereign at the head of the state; indeed, the devotion of the British nation to the monarchical system has been the envy of European rulers. But—the British sovereign must abide by the laws and limitations imposed by British customs and reign as a constitutional monarch.”
Queen Elizabeth II has certainly done that. And the British people—her people—will demonstrate their gratitude in this year of her Diamond Jubilee. And meanwhile the loyal citizens of the Great Republic will look on at the doings in their Mother Country with a mixture of respect, bemusement, and, perhaps, just a touch of envy.
德国总统刚被炒了，所以作者也用不着再费心去惦记他到底叫啥名了~
另外，俺记得温莎王朝的历史好像是可以追述到德国的一个萨克森公国，而阿尔佛雷德是不列颠原产的萨克森国王，这两者之间也有血缘关系吗？欧洲王室血统这些东西还真是复杂呢~ 想想去年电视转播威廉王子与凯特•米德尔顿的婚礼时，有100亿人关注这个节目，其中很多人在半夜起床打开电视。
哪里来的100亿人？是不是外星人也来了 英国这样一个民主的国家怎么会容忍如此不民主的制度，即让一个家族成为国家最高的决策机构？
Q15)这句是真话，其它是睡梦中的涂脂抹粉啊
页:
[1]