Go to Top

The Emperor’s Speech

Americans can be excused if we do not understand why a constitutional democracy would have a royal head of state. But in times of dire need, people who were raised in a monarchy know why they want one.

Japan’s Emperor Akihito provided the latest lesson on the role of a modern sovereign when he appeared on television, for the first time, to rally his stricken people in a pre-recorded speech Wednesday.

Akihito offered a sympathetic but hopeful message, saying, “I truly hope the victims of the disaster never give up hope, take care of themselves, and live strong for tomorrow.” He also exhorted his citizens “to remember everyone who has been affected by the devastation, not only today but for a long time afterwards — and help with the recovery.”

When the needs are so great, the problems are so large, why does it matter whether a monarch who controls no government resources says anything at all?

The subject drew a lot of attention recently, due to the award-winning film “The King’s Speech.” Colin Firth as Britain’s King George VI expresses frustration and doubt over a king’s place in a democracy. “If I am to be King...where is my power? May I form a Government, levy a tax or declare a war? No! Yet I am the seat of all authority. Why? Because the Nation believes when I speak, I speak for them.” The film centered on that king’s particular challenges, and the way in which they translated into words that inspired the British people.

The real-life George VI and his family served as a rallying point for Britain’s dogged resistance throughout the London blitz. Along with the more microphone-loving Winston Churchill, the royal family earned much credit for keeping their country fighting until America’s belated entry to the war finally offered the prospect of relief and eventual victory.

Other European royals were equally important to their people during World War II. King Christian X of Denmark remained in his capital throughout the Nazi occupation, an important symbol of resistance. While he studiously ignored salutes from German officers, his subjects were busy spiriting virtually the entire Jewish population of the country to safety in neutral Sweden under the occupiers’ noses. His government consistently refused to make laws abridging Danish Jews’ civil rights. The king’s brother, King Haakon VII of Norway, chose to go into exile rather than accept a Nazi puppet regime.

During the war, monarchs not only made important symbols, but sometimes actively made important choices as well. King Leopold III of Belgium surrendered to the Nazis against his government’s recommendation. He believed the Allied situation to be hopeless and sought to spare his people suffering in a lost cause. While his government was in exile, Leopold spent the war as a German prisoner.

A more recent example comes from Spain. In 1981, the recently crowned King Juan Carlos I of Spain faced down a coup attempt by the late dictator Francisco Franco's supporters, who had counted on the king’s support, or at least his silent acquiescence.

Instead, Juan Carlos appeared on television in uniform and denounced the insurgents. He declared, “The crown, symbol of the permanence and unity of the nation, cannot tolerate, in any form, actions or attitudes attempting to interrupt the democratic process.”

The speech rallied the military to his side, effectively ending the last attempted coup in Western European history thus far. Juan Carlos remains a popular and outspoken monarch today, having more recently taken a hard line against Venezuela's power hungry Hugo Chavez.

As I wrote in Monday’s post, Japan’s then-emperor Hirohito spoke directly to his people, many of whom had never heard his voice before, to announce the country’s surrender at the end of World War II. He asked Japanese citizens not to fight on in his name, but rather to “suffer the insufferable” and accept surrender in order to “pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come.”

Akihito, who is Hirohito's son, was the first emperor to take the throne under the existing constitution, as a man rather than as a god. He is nevertheless a deeply respected figure in Japan. He brought comfort to the victims of Kobe’s 1995 earthquake with a royal visit. If the 77-year-old monarch’s health permits, I imagine he will eventually tour the hard-hit areas of northeast Japan following this month’s disasters, as well.

We Americans read about other nations’ royalty in the tabloids, as we read about athletes and musicians. But we are removed from them. We don't embody our nation in a specific family or individual. The closest thing to royalty we have might actually be our Constitution, a written document that is seen as capturing enduring principles for which our nation stands — even though we often disagree on exactly what those principles are and what they mean in modern life. We look to the Supreme Court to arbitrate those disagreements, but we certainly don't look on Supreme Court justices as royalty. And a document, even such an important one, lacks a human being’s nuances, flaws and compassion alike.

So we may not completely understand the role of royals in democratic governments. That does not mean we can’t appreciate it. We have seen many times how monarchs can inspire their people, raise morale and even change history, all without any real political power at all. Royals are at their best when suffering is greatest and they provide whatever relief they can.

Japan’s suffering is the greatest it has seen in a very long time. I hope their emperor can help the Japanese through these trials.

Larry M. Elkin is the founder and president of Palisades Hudson, and is based out of Palisades Hudson’s Fort Lauderdale, Florida headquarters. He wrote several of the chapters in the firm’s recently updated book, The High Achiever’s Guide To Wealth. His contributions include Chapter 1, “Anyone Can Achieve Wealth,” and Chapter 19, “Assisting Aging Parents.” Larry was also among the authors of the firm’s previous book Looking Ahead: Life, Family, Wealth and Business After 55.

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author. We welcome additional perspectives in our comments section as long as they are on topic, civil in tone and signed with the writer's full name. All comments will be reviewed by our moderator prior to publication.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to "The Emperor’s Speech"

  • Ryan McAdam
    March 17, 2011 - 1:45 pm

    As a Canadian Citizen I enjoy the privileges of living in a Constitutional Monarchy. Overall, I think Canadians are mostly indifferent to the idea of Canada being a Monarchy. The majority of arguments surrounding the debate as to whether we should keep the crown or adopt a republican style of government tend to focus along the lines of, “why should Canada, a sovereign nation, continue to look to a British Queen as a representative of its sovereignty” and, “why do we continue to honour our colonial heritage this way – after all we have grown-up”.

    I do not discount the validity of these questions and I see why people ask them. However, I do not believe many Canadians truly understand just how much influence the existence of the Crown has had do with our maturity as a nation. It is also important to note, when asking such questions, that while Elizabeth II may be also Queen of the United Kingdom, in Canada she is simply, Queen of Canada.

    We have always been under the influence of the United States and certainly these influences have enriched Canadian culture and commerce. However, the existence of the Crown has allowed Canadian society to mature into somewhat of a hybrid of the American and European ways of doing things. For example, in Canada we have highly developed public health care and social security networks that without the influences of a crown, I believe would have not have developed in the way they have.

    The Crown has also influenced our style of justice and law making, and created a network of crown offices across the country that help to unify our geographically large and diverse nation. I for one am pleased to have non-political offices whose tasks include acknowledging and celebrating Canadian achievements, leading the country in mourning lost soldiers, and ensuring that our constitution and charter principles are upheld.

    To all Canadian’s who question the necessity of the crown in Canada, I ask them to look beyond the face on our money and the authority of whom our passports are issued under, and really look at the Crown’s subtle contributions, both historic and present-day, to the Canadian way of life before deciding it is no longer needed.

    Thank you for writing this essay and allowing me the opportunity to comment.

    God Save the Queen of Canada!

  • Daniel Wybo
    March 22, 2011 - 8:34 am

    RE: King Leopold III and the Belgian Surrender

    Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged that King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance, saved the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in may 1940, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence.

    In 1960, delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College, Liddell Hart bluntly declared: “The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians.”

    Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant’s claim that “the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alan Brooke” did not stand up to examination.

    Hart went on to say: “The unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned, the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk.”

    Liddell Hart went further to say: “If King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th , as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so, the Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th. If so, the British would have had very little chance of escaping encirclement, so that it could very reasonably be claimed that they were saved by King Leopold III, who then was violently abused by Britain and France.”