No future for the monarchy
On Sunday, Luxembourg’s monarch, Grand Duke Henri, announced that he would hand over his governing duties to his son, the Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume, who would become a prince regent. Grand Duke Henri will remain head of state, but the announcement is the first step toward his official abdication.
However, Guillaume will inherit less power than his father did when he ascended the throne in 2000. With each generation, the monarchy's influence diminishes. The most significant decrease occurred in 2008 when Luxembourg's elected government and parliament chose to legalise euthanasia. The Grand Duke refused to sign the bill due to personal beliefs, sparking a constitutional crisis that resulted in a constitutional amendment which stripped him of all his legislative powers.
When I first moved to Luxembourg a couple of years ago, I wondered whose face I saw in images in every bakery and each public building. Coming from a republic, the concept of a monarchy was strange to me. Whereas the British crown symbolises unity, Luxembourg’s current monarchs don't even hold such a symbolic role.
It used to be different. When Germany invaded Luxembourg during WW2, Grand Duchess Charlotte, her family, and the government fled to the United Kingdom to continue reigning over Luxembourg even during Nazi occupation. This exile government became an anchor of hope for the Luxembourgish people, with Charlotte emerging as an icon of hope and unity.
Nowadays, however, this momentum is lost, and the idea of a monarch who truly reigns is unthinkable in a democratic country. Even with their very limited power, Luxembourg’s monarchy lacks real legitimacy. Heads of state should be democratically elected, not enthroned through succession. That Grand Dukes, queens, and princes continue to live off tax money without fulfilling a more than symbolic role is highly questionable. In many monarchies, though, frequent polls show that citizens still favour retaining their queens and princes.