As a child of a constitutional democracy, I would first of all like to dissociate myself from Matt’s claim that “[w]e [what do you mean we, white man? --ed.] follow the royal family with fascination” — myself, I find the monarchy as utterly uninteresting as similar famous-for-being-famous families as the Kardashians, whose case for taxpayer-funded lavish lifestyles and status titles isn’t much more compelling. I’m also extremely skeptical that having a constitutional monarch makes any real difference in how political leaders are perceived. As far as I can tell, Canadian Prime Ministers are treated by the public pretty much the was American presidents are treated.
In spite of my small-r republicanism, however, I am compelled to note Eileen McDonagh’s paper arguing that constitutional monarchy increases women’s political representation. I’m still not sure I buy the causal logic, but the case is surprisingly plausible.
…in fairness, I think I might have more interest in the royal wedding than in who wins Dancing With What We’ll Charitably Call “Stars.”