The answer is not to make the monarchy more relevant to the woman/man in the street as Solana Larsen's description of the Danish royals suggests. The answer lies with the diffusion of power bases - the monarchy being representative of just one of them. Is it really acceptable to have one family with privileges far above the rest of the population?
National identity is not bound up with having a monarchy. One needs only to look to France and the US to see this. Nor is it a pre-requisite for getting tourists here; France is the most visited country in the world - and yet the French overthrew their monarchy a long time ago. National identity - and this is a question on its own that should be discussed - is about differences between cultures, ones that should be cultivated, so that we learn more, understand more, tolerate more and ultimately celebrate those differences.
A monarchy represents division - a division between 'the people' and the ruling elite, one that extends beyond the national to the international level. Under various monarchs, England has sailed to the four corners of the world in an effort to 'rule' other peoples. Such power-hunger is of course not specific just to the monarchy, as US imperialism testifies. But if power is concentrated in one area, then it is in danger of becoming a corruptive force. By the same token, the more there is a diffusion of that power, the less likely would such corruption be.
On a personal note, it shames me to acknowledge the existence of such an institution. We have come, it seems, not very far down the civilised road.
