Crossfire

Should the British Monarchy Continue?

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MARY MATALIN, CO-HOST: Tonight, Prince William celebrates his 18th birthday. But is the British monarchy anything to celebrate? As new polls show support more the royal family at a new low, should the monarchy continue?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Mary Matalin. In the CROSSFIRE, U.S. correspondent for "The Guardian," Julian Borger, and in New York, Richard Mineards, from the "London Daily Express."

MATALIN: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Prince William, the spitting-image eldest son of Princess Diana, turns 18 today. That right of passage marks the beginning of manhood, and in the case of this heir to the throne, the end of privacy.

The royal family hopes the gentleman's agreement between William's father, Prince Charles, and the paparazzi to give the boy room to grow and heal from his mother's tragic death extends beyond his high-school years, which ends with his finals today.

Prince William's exams at Eton prevents his joining the British royal family's biggest birthday bash ever, hosted by Queen Elizabeth at Windsor Castle, commemorating five royal birthdays, including the Queen Mum's 100th. William's absence will be overshadowed by Fergie's presence, her first royal invitation in three years since splitting with Prince Andrew, Charles' brother, William's uncle.

Meanwhile, Charles appeared publicly for only the second time with his longtime mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, who Diana identified as the rotweiler that busted up her fairytale marriage.

All of this family soap opera in the news, the age-old debate over the monarchy. The public is pulling for the prince, but is ambivalent on the family. So tonight, we weigh-in on the trans- Atlantic topic: Can the beautiful young prince restore respect for the beleaguered monarchy? Can he withstand the ravages of the rambunctious paparazzi he blames for his mother's death? Is there a 21st century purpose for a Dark Ages institution?

Bill Press, our princeling, is in San Francisco.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: I don't know about being a prince. I have been called a royal pain. Richard -- Richard Mineards, good evening.

RICHARD MINEARDS, "LONDON DAILY EXPRESS": Good evening.

PRESS: Thank you for joining us. It is the prince's birthday, but he's only one member of the whole royal family. So Richard, I want to start with the whole gang, and my question to you about this entire monarchy is very simple: Why?

MINEARDS: Well, it's certainly an anachronisms, but it's very much a delightful anachronism, and it also generates revenue for the country. When you work it out that the civil list (ph), which is what the taxpayer pays to have the royal family, is the equivalent of about $25 million. And to that in perspective, that's slightly more than Tom Cruise gets for one movie. And I would venture to say over the last thousand years of royalty in Britain, we've got more than our money's worth out of them.

And I do think now they're streamlining themselves as they go into the next century. They realize they've got to be a much more modern, contemporary monarchy. And with William in the works, I mean, he is the vital part of the equation, because I really do think that without William, the monarchy would be doomed after the death of Elizabeth II in 25 years time.

PRESS: Well, I think we get a lot more entertainment out of Tom Cruise than we do the whole royal bunch, but I want -- let's talk -- let's money a little later, and just talk about the symbolism of the whole thing, because England calls itself a democracy, and yet at the head of it is this thing that comes by birthright, not being elected, where the males have dominance to the throne.

You know, isn't it the very opposite of what democracy is all about? And why do you keep it?

MINEARDS: Well, these days, of course, the monarch is merely the titular head of the country. Prime Minister Tony Blair really has certainly the reins, although the queen has the right of royal ascent to all the legal documents and acts of government to certainly go through.

I think we still need a monarchy, because of course the pomp and pageantry and ceremonial that is associated with the royal family and the trappings of monarchy do attract a lot of tourism and many millions of dollars to the country.

I mean, look at the people who go to the trooping of the color, the changing of the guard, Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle. One can go on and on and on, and I think that's a lot of money going to the British cash registers.

PRESS: Well, I wonder if the British public is not trying to -- starting maybe to have second thoughts. I saw a poll recently in "The Guardian" -- this is just last month: "How would Britain fare without a royal family?" was the question asked. Worse off: 44 percent; better off: 27 percent. Now the worse off I think is still appallingly high. But back in the '80s, that worse off was 70 percent, Richard. So their support is really plummeting with the public, isn't it?

MINEARDS: Certainly, the royal family's support has eroded over the past 10 years, particularly with the continuing saga of the unhappy wives of Windsor, because they've not had much to be merry about over the last decade or two.

(LAUGHTER)

This is why Prince William is so vital, because not only is he very popular with the young people, who of course are going to be the supporters of the monarchy four decades hence, but he's also very popular with those avowed monarchists, who whatever the monarchy did, they would find no wrong. And this is why William is going to be so vital for the future.

MATALIN: OK, Julian, let's pick it up there. Isn't he just so cute?

(LAUGHTER)

And the respect and the attraction goes to the institution. It's just analogous to our situation here. Our dignity goes to the office, not necessarily the occupant, having just lived through a year or two of the recent unpleasantness.

But let me let you listen to something that the royal photographer had to say about Prince William.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARTHUR EDWARDS, ROYAL PHOTOGRAPHER, "THE SUN": He's going to be a bigger star than Leonardo DiCaprio, you know, or anybody you want to name. You know, he's going to even, I think, outmega his mother, you know, he's going to be so popular. He's got her looks. He's got her sensitivity. He's got his father's sense of duty. I think he's going to be a tremendous asset to the royal family and a tremendous asset to this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATALIN: Isn't Diana's infusion into the gene pool, this jolly good-looking gene pool now, isn't Prince William going to able to restore the grandeur, the respect, the romanticism to the monarchy?

JULIAN BORGER, "THE GUARDIAN": I think you're projecting an awful lot onto an 18-year-old boy. After all, you've got to remember that the country has to wait for the present reign to end, and then it's got to wait through Charles and Camilla, which will be a completely different concept. And I think it's when Charles and Camilla approach the throne that the country is going to have a very fundamental reassessment about what the monarchy is doing for the country, what it's doing to the country.

MATALIN: Well, what about some of the things that they do? I was -- I was absolutely amazed myself researching today at the good works that this family does. We all were familiar with Princess Di's work with AIDS, and cancer and children and land mines. But Princess Anne, the hardest-working royal, she's involved in hundreds of organization. Prince Charles, hundreds of organizations, from the arts to the elderly. In addition to that, they're ambassadors of goodwill. They do, do good works for the country.

BORGER: All celebrities are very good at raising money. I think Princess Di was far better than all the others in terms of attracting attention to charities. But the fact that an individual is good at raising money for charity, does that give them the right to reign over you? Does that give them the right to make you their subjects?

After all, we in Britain are subjects of the royal family. We're not citizens. You take these things for granted, but they are certain inalienable rights that you have in your country that we don't. And because these are nice-looking people...

MATALIN: You vote. I was just -- we were just there at 10 Downing. This last Christmas we took our children to see Tony Blair and visit -- of course, we went to Buckingham. I want to get to tourism in a minute. But you vote. You elect your representatives. It's a democracy. You're not subjected to the monarch. There's no tyranny there.

BORGER: I think the main difference is entirely psychological. I think when you're a subject, I think people think of themselves as subjects, because they don't demand their rights from the government in the same way as Americans demand their rights, because it's written down there in the Constitution.

The government in our country governs at the consent of the monarch. It doesn't govern for the people.

So to give an example, when it comes to freedom of information, we haven't had -- we don't have anything like your Freedom of Information Act, because the government is the queen's government and it lets little bits of information go as it sees fit, not as the public demands. That's a crucial difference.

PRESS: Richard, I'd like to go back to you about this money issue that you raised, because clearly the royal family, they're worth billions and billions of dollars. They own all of these vast tracts of land. They get their annual salaries from the treasury, plus the government pays to upkeep their castles and their grounds and their trains and God knows what else.

I mean, you could save billions of dollars by getting rid of these sponges. I don't understand why you don't. Spend it on health care or child care or something.

MINEARDS: Well, certainly, obviously $25 million would go a long way in any...

PRESS: Oh, it's more than that, Richard, it's more than that. MINEARDS: But obviously, these homes -- Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace -- would be kept up by the Department of Environment in Britain anyway, if there weren't a royal family, much like Versailles and Fontainebleau are in France without a royal family there. And of course, the queen is a very rich woman, but a lot of those things you're saying about, for instance, the crown jewels, the royal art collection -- which is worth millions -- hundreds of millions of pounds, is very much a gray area.

It's not something the queen can go to the auction houses of Sotheby's and Christie's, and sell-off.

She only has two major properties she actually owns: Sandringham House in the southeast of England, and Balmoral we all know, in Scotland, built by Queen Victoria. And very much of the rest is at the behest of the what the government would allow her under the civil (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

PRESS: But you seem to think -- and I heard you say it and I've heard other Brits say it -- that they're needed because they bring in all the tourist dollars. I mean, look, we've got Disneyland, we've got Disneyworld. I mean, people come to see stuffed animals. They don't have to be alive. People are still going to come to see the old castles even if these old monarchs aren't there.

MINEARDS: Well, I certainly agree with you to that extent. But I do think the fact they have them live is slightly better.

Would you rather go to a zoo and see stuffed animals, or would you rather see them walking around and enjoying their natural habitat, in this case Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle?

Certainly, I think without the proper pageantry Britain has lost a great deal of tradition, which we all go their for.

PRESS: I'm saying you could stuff her and just as many people would come.

(LAUGHTER)

MATALIN: Julian, Bill has just demonstrated the lack of knowledge of how capitalism works. It's the living monarchy that makes that history relevant.

If it costs 25 million to support them, Americans and Canadians alone generated $3.7 billion, not million, billion dollars for the economy. It's the fifth -- London is the fifth-largest money-making tourist attraction in the world: 17 million visitors come to London. They're not coming to look at stuffed animals or their wax museum. They're coming to look at a living monarchy.

It's much more relevant to go into a castle where people exist than an old dead one in Bavaria.

That's how capitalism works, Bill, right?

PRESS: Get out of here.

BORGER: That's a completely false premise.

PRESS: Thank you, Julian. Thank you.

BORGER: They don't come to London to see the queen. I mean, what do you think your chances are of going to London and actually catching sight of the queen? You'd have to probably, you know, stand outside Buckingham Palace for days, weeks? And do you think that the tourists from around the world and from America standing outside Buckingham Palace are going to say to one another: "Oh, I heard that the queen no longer has to give her royal ascent for the government to be an active government, we better go home"?

I don't think that's going to happen. London is going to be the same. Buckingham Palace is going to be the same.

MATALIN: I have stood outside...

BORGER: And the people are still going to be there.

MATALIN: ... there for hours.

BORGER: William is still going to be there. I mean, he's not going to be in the Tower of London, although that might be quite a good tourist attraction.

PRESS: All right, gentlemen, we're going to take a break right at that point, and when we come back, we'll get back to the birthday boy. Now that he's 18, will Prince William be fair game for the media and should he be?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

It's Prince William's birthday. Aren't you excited? He's so excited he didn't even go to his own birthday party. He stayed in his room instead studying for an exam. How do you like that?

Was he dissing the royal family or just trying to stay out of the spotlight? And now that he's 18, how can he stay out of the spotlight?

We celebrate the prince's birthday tonight by examining the relevance and future of the entire royal clan with two loyal subjects: Richard Mineards, in New York -- he's with "The London Daily Express" -- and Julian Borger, U.S. correspondent for "The Guardian."

I'm in San Francisco tonight. Princess Mary reigns alone in Washington, D.C.

(LAUGHTER)

MATALIN: OK, Julian, you might be a subject, but we're not called royals. You're a royal subject. Let's talk about this privacy issue. The tabloid -- I guess it's a tabloid -- Britain's most widely read daily, "The Sun," had nine pages, every inch of the first nine pages was about William. And it had a special pullout two-page poster of him. This is in conjunction with an editorial that was headlined, "William Must Have His Privacy."

Isn't there a bit of schizophrenia amongst you royal subjects about your monarchy and how they're covered?

BORGER: I don't think on this occasion there was. It was a very organized deal where the palace distributed some very stage-managed photographs to the press and on the understanding that they wouldn't chase him around every day of his life. And I don't -- I don't think really that the press should chase him around. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

But it's because he ought to be what he is, a private citizen. And I think it's really the royal family that's schizophrenic and wants to have its own private life and to have affairs and to do whatever it wants to do, and it wants us to stay away. But when it comes to ruling and reigning over us, well, they want us to pledge allegiance and sing "God Save Our Gracious King," or queen or whoever it happens to be at the time.

MATALIN: Well, is it -- is it just a possibility that the level of scrutiny, which exceeds, of the royal family, which exceeds even our kind of voyeurism, voyeuristic press in this country, would reveal anyone to be dysfunctional, or in the alternative would make anyone dysfunctional? The reports are rampant of Princess Di just cracking under that kind of scrutiny.

Maybe that level of intense scrutiny made this family dysfunctional or revealed what wasn't revealed of previous families.

BORGER: I think they probably are just an ordinary dysfunctional family -- just like the Clintons the Windsors are: you know, your regular soap opera sort of family. I mean, that's really not the issue here. The issue is have they been -- do they have the hereditary to rule us? And no one is questioning their right to privacy, their right to be the way they want to be, the way they've been born. But the question is, should they have the power just by the accident of their birth?

PRESS: Richard, just a couple of quick questions following up on that about Prince William. I think it's fine. I think it was appropriate and important for those kids to be left alone, like Chelsea was left alone. But now that William's 18, I mean, all bets are off, right? I mean, he's fair game, and should be. Wouldn't you agree?

MINEARDS: Well, I think he's certainly fair game. I don't think he should be. It depends how it's handled.

As you well know, over the last five years, there's always been this tacit agreement with the British media to have a hands-off situation with William. But the thing you have to worry about now, now that he's 18 and an adult, is not so much the accredited British media but the paparazzi freelancers, particularly from France, Germany and Italy that dogged Diana particularly. And I think that is going to be very much the situation with William.

These are guys who have their zoom lenses trained on this young man 24 hours a day from now on until the day he dies.

PRESS: Well, just a note of reality here, too, I mean, all this puppy love about this gorgeous hunk of a prince, I mean, it could be 50 years before he ever becomes king, if ever, right? I mean, his -- the grandmother's still alive. She's 74. His father is 51. I mean, it's going to be a long time before William ever sits on that thrown.

MINEARDS: It is going to be a long time, but I've always thought the scenario -- there's nothing stopping Charles if he wishes. He clearly wants to be king. But I've always thought that obviously, given William's age, Charles should renounce the throne, pass over himself and pass it straight onto William. He'll then be in his early 40s, hopefully still well-liked, and perfectly placed to stabilize the monarchy as the century progresses.

PRESS: Well, I think Charles wants to be king, but he also wants to be married. Why the hell don't you guys let him get married? Everybody knows he and Camilla have been together for longer than he and Diana were together. Shouldn't they get married?

MINEARDS: Well, I don't like going out on a limb, but I think that within two or three years they will marry, because obviously the queen has now met Camilla and it was made public. The archbishop of Canterbury, who's the ecclesiastical head of the Church of England, has said there should be no barriers to Charles marrying Camilla. And the British opinion polls have swung 180 degrees in the last three years since Diana's death, saying they wouldn't mind Charles marrying Camilla, but not to be her queen in the sense that she should be consort but not the -- obviously, the queen in waiting, as it were.

PRESS: Mary.

MATALIN: Well, Julian, this is -- while this puts me (UNINTELLIGIBLE) not my strongest argument for perpetuating the monarchy here, but it is incredible entertainment. And there have been court-watchers since the Dark Ages. With no monarchy, you wouldn't have this kind of daily living soap opera. Isn't worth maintaining the monarchy just for that level of entertainment?

BORGER: Well, you seem to manage and you don't have a monarchy. You have O.J. Simpson and you have all the Hollywood stars.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, you have enough to fill...

PRESS: Hollywood!

BORGER: Exactly. You have enough to fill, you know, CNN's airtime. And yet, they go out and make a living for themselves. We're subsidizing one of the richest families in Europe, if not the world.

MATALIN: Well, listen, this may be a moot point, because when asked if the monarchy will survive, your fellow royal subjects by 69 percent say that it will. That's predictive that it will.

BORGER: But that -- attitudes are changing. And my prediction is that by the time William's time comes there will be no more monarchy. And I think respect is dropping off radically for the monarchy and the monarchy's authority is dropping off. And they're gradually giving away their power in salami slices, and it will all be over by the time William's say comes.

MATALIN: Oh, we -- you know what? We really hope not. And I think William will always be a hunk.

Richard Mineards, thank you so much for joining us.

MINEARDS: My pleasure.

MATALIN: Julian Borger, thank you for joining us.

BORGER: Thank you.

MATALIN: King William, the one who does sit on the throne there in San Francisco, and I will be right back with our closing comments on the monarchy. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATALIN: Don't miss your chance to turn the tables on these British journalists and ask the questions. Go to CNN.com/Crossfire right after the show.

King Bill, listen, let's get our standards consistent here. It was all about privacy, it was all about their marriage is their own business, when we were talking about the Clintons. Now, it's invade their privacy and who needs them.

Look, this is -- this is a link to history, to heritage. It's patriotic. It's tradition. It's stability. It's continuity. What's the big deal?

PRESS: I'll tell you the big deal. Every time I see one of those deadbeats I'm glad we fought the revolution and won.

Look, you know what my message is? Happy birthday, Will. Go get a job.

MATALIN: Deadbeats? Deadbeats?

PRESS: They are deadbeats.

MATALIN: Half of your party are deadbeats.

PRESS: Wait a minute.

MATALIN: You...

PRESS: We're talking about...

MATALIN: Last time, you were just talking about giving money away to people who aren't making enough. But they generate $3.7 billion a year just from Americans and Canadians for their pittance of 25 million a year.

PRESS: What has one of them done to deserve any public support? Nothing. I think Britain needs welfare reform. They ought to take these slugs off the public dole, Mary, starting at the very top.

MATALIN: Princess Diana: AIDS, cancer, land mines.

PRESS: Starting at the top.

From the left, goodbye, monarchy. I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

MATALIN: And from the right, the monarchist position, I'm Mary Matalin. Join us again tomorrow night for more CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com