More stories

  • in

    The Royals May Be on to Something

    LONDON — With the thrill of coronation still in the air outside Buckingham Palace, it’s tempting for a Yankee to mock the British for the shop windows full of coronation plates and King Charles III coffee mugs. And how can we not roll our eyes when a slice of cake from the 2005 wedding between the new king and queen now sells for $1,600?Yet I won’t indulge in mockery for two reasons. First, many of the tourists buying the souvenirs have undeniable American accents.Second, I would never admit this in public — but I’ve come to think that maybe there are advantages to having a royal family.Britain is, like America, so polarized that any political leader is loathed by a sizable chunk of the population, sowing conflict and risking violence. But with the monarchy, the U.K. is guaranteed a nonpolitical head of state who amounts to a unifying force.“It helps to have someone who is above politics and can bring people together,” said Chris Patten, a longtime political leader who is now formally Lord Patten of Barnes.A May poll found that 62 percent of people in Great Britain favored remaining a monarchy, compared to 28 percent who preferred a republic. Young people were somewhat less enthusiastic about royalty than older people, but that has been true for decades: As they age, Britons appear to become more pro-monarchy.A monarch is not the only option for a nonpolitical head of state. Germany, Israel and other countries have non-royal largely ceremonial heads of state who can stand for harmony above the fray. President Isaac Herzog of Israel tried to do that this year to promote compromise, preserve democratic norms and calm the mass protests in Israel; he warned that the conflict could even lead to civil war.But even the nonpolitical presidents like Herzog are often former politicians and don’t seem to have the healing power of monarchs. King Charles declined to be interviewed (when I requested time with him, I think his staff giggled). But I’ve occasionally interacted with other members of his family and with royalty in other countries — and it’s funny how even we Americans go weak-kneed over even a measly duchess or, say, a Tongan king.When Japan gave up fighting in 1945 to end World War II, many in the Tokyo government bitterly opposed the decision. It was perhaps only Emperor Hirohito as the revered leader of Japan who could convince the army to stand down, even if his speech announcing surrender was royally elliptical: “The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.”One study of 137 countries over more than a century found that monarchies perform better economically than republics over the long run. The authors concluded that this was in part because monarchs provided a national symbol of unity, reducing internal conflict and threats to property rights.Kings can be expensive, of course, and it can seem ridiculous to provide public housing in the form of palaces to one family, while countless others are homeless. But in Britain, the royal family may pay for itself with tourism income, and constitutes a useful tool of foreign policy: Every foreign leader wants tea with the sovereign, so when prime ministers ruffle foreign feathers the royals can smooth them.The royal family is “an integral part of our soft power strategy,” noted Arminka Helic, now the Baroness Helic, a foreign policy expert. Helic grew up in the former Yugoslavia and came to Britain only at the age of 24, but she says she still sees the royals as “the family to which we are all related no matter where we come from.”I’m not advocating for royalty in America, even if we may be more perilously divided than at any time in a century. George III soured us forever on kings. Which raises the question: What happens when a bad (or mad) king comes along?Britain dodged a bullet when King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, for he was a racist who was soft on Nazism, especially because he lived a long life, dying only in 1972. The United Kingdom hit the jackpot with Queen Elizabeth II and seems to have relatively reliable heirs in the form of King Charles and Prince William.Thailand is less fortunate. When the last, much revered Thai king died in 2016, he was succeeded not by the king’s widely admired daughter but by his scandal-plagued son — who has spent a great deal of time in Germany with his paramours and once promoted his poodle, Foo Foo, to the rank of “air chief marshal.”Bad kings are difficult to recover from. They’re one reason the number of monarchies has fallen from 160 in 1900 to fewer than 30 now.But today’s constitutional monarchies like Britain, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands may benefit by turning to an apolitical family that, in exchange for palaces, will supply a nation with gossip, tourism and a bit of harmony.So don’t tell a soul, but as I stand outside Buckingham Palace, I think: “God save the king!”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. More

  • in

    Nikki Haley’s Financial Disclosures Show Speaking Fees and Other Income

    The NewsNikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, earned at least $1.2 million — and as much as $12 million — from speaking engagements in the year leading up to her entry into the presidential race, according to her personal financial disclosure form.The disclosure, filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission, also shows that Ms. Haley is still on the board of United Homes Group, one of the largest homebuilders in the Southeast and a public company in which she owns stock.On her financial disclosure forms, Nikki Haley listed a dozen speaking engagements, each with a reported honorarium between $100,001 and $1 million.Brian Snyder/ReutersWhy It Matters: Avoiding appearances of conflicts.The filing shows how Ms. Haley parlayed her experience in the Trump administration and the governor’s office into lucrative opportunities in the private sector, and how those commitments have carried over into her presidential campaign.Presidential candidates typically resign from corporate boards soon after entering the race, to avoid the appearance of any conflicts.A spokeswoman for Ms. Haley did not comment on the filing, or on Ms. Haley’s continued service on the United Homes board.Ms. Haley listed a dozen speaking engagements, for each of which she reported an honorarium between $100,001 and $1 million. They included events at the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs in Montreal, Barclays Services Corporation in New York, and Water Street Healthcare Partners in Chicago.The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Ms. Haley had received stock options from United Homes worth close to $300,000 on March 30, about six weeks after she entered the presidential race.In the filing, Ms. Haley reported owning between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of stock in Great Southern Homes, which became United Homes when it went public through a merger.Other Disclosures: A book, consulting fees and Boeing stock.Ms. Haley’s filing also showed she earned $100,000 to $1 million in royalties for the book she wrote in late 2022, “If You Want Something Done,” which is a series of vignettes of women who inspired her. She reported no royalties on two previous books.Ms. Haley also reported that she is a senior adviser at Prism Global Management, which is described on its LinkedIn page as a “US-based investment platform targeting growth-stage disruptive innovators in US and Asia.”She reported between $100,000 and $1 million in consulting fees from Prism.The filing shows that Ms. Haley also owns up to $250,000 in stock in Boeing, the aerospace giant on whose board she served for about a year after leaving the Trump administration. She resigned from the Boeing board in March 2020, saying she disagreed with the company’s decision to seek Covid-related federal aid.Shane Goldmacher More