王室寶寶引發(fā)英國君主制存廢之爭

Media outlets in the UK went berserk over the arrival of the royal baby. Reporters camped for days outside the hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge stayed; TV presenters spent prime time slots speculating on the baby’s name or when it would ascend the throne; tabloid newspaper The Sun ¬even changed its masthead to “The Son” on the day the royal birth was announced.

不久前，英國各大媒體為王室寶寶的到來而狂熱不已。記者們在凱特王妃入住的醫(yī)院外駐扎多日，電視主持人們則占用黃金時段來推測寶寶的名字和繼承王位的時間。英國小報《太陽報》(The Sun)甚至在王室寶寶誕生當天將其報頭改成了《太子報》(The Son)。

But many were irritated by the intense media coverage. Satirical news magazine Private Eye printed one simple sentence in bold letters on its cover: “Woman Has Baby”, to ridicule other media outlets’ frenzyover an event the editors considered to be non-news. The Guardian’s website featured a “republican” button to make all talk of the royal baby disappear for non-Royalist readers.

然而，媒體鋪天蓋地的報道令許多人大為光火。批判性新聞雜志《偵探》僅在其封面印上寥寥幾個粗體字：“王妃生了”，以調(diào)侃其他媒體對此次非新聞性事件的狂熱?！缎l(wèi)報》則在其網(wǎng)站上添加了“共和黨人”的按鈕，為“非?；逝?rdquo;用戶自動屏蔽關于王室寶寶誕生的話題。

Following the initial excitement, many wonder if it isn’t a bit silly to pay so much attention to one privileged family. But the UK’s republicans are taking it a step further — they argue that the British monarchy should be abolished altogether.

最初的狂喜過后，許多人開始思考對一個特權(quán)家族投入過多的關注是否有些可笑。而更有甚者，英國共和黨人士聲稱應該廢除君主制。

This is not a new argument and to many it makes a lot of sense: The UK is a democracy, therefore the role of the royals is largely ceremonial. The royal family is also dependent on tax-payers’ money and no longer represents this highly diversified country.

這一爭論由來已久，很多人也認為這樣做合情合理：英國是民主國家，因此王室更多扮演的是禮儀性的角色。同時，王室的開銷還要靠納稅人來買單，它也不再能夠代表一個如此多元化的國家。

But the British people love their royals, and that’s a fact. According to a poll by Ipsos Mori last month, 77 percent of Britons want their country to remain a monarchy. For one thing, the royal family brings in heaps of tourism revenues.

但不可否認的是，英國王室深受英國人愛戴。據(jù)益普索•莫里調(diào)查機構(gòu)于上月進行的一項民意調(diào)查顯示，77%的英國人希望保留君主制。理由之一是王室能為旅游業(yè)帶來巨大創(chuàng)收。

Tourism is the third biggest industry in the UK. An article on The Atlantic website cites statistics from the UK’s tourism agency, according to which the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds (4.8 billion yuan) every year in tourism revenues, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace.

旅游業(yè)是英國的第三大產(chǎn)業(yè)?！洞笪餮笤驴肪W(wǎng)站上的一篇文章援引英國旅游局的數(shù)據(jù)指出，英國王室每年為旅游業(yè)創(chuàng)收近5億英鎊(約合48億元人民幣)，諸如倫敦塔、溫莎城堡和白金漢宮這些王室景點吸引了眾多游客。

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs each Briton 53 pence, per year. The total came to 33.3 million pounds in 2012-2013. So keeping the royal family is a good investment.

白金漢宮方面則表示，英國每人每年要花費53便士來支持王室開銷。2012-2013年的總花費達3330萬英鎊。因此，保留王室是筆十分劃算的投資。

Of course, many royalists also want to maintain the monarchy for non-economic reasons. Daniel Hannan, a conservative Member of the European Parliament, says in an article for The Telegraph that the British monarchy, as well as the parliamentary democracy, is a unifying national institution.

當然，除去經(jīng)濟因素，許多“?；逝?rdquo;人士也依然維護君主制。身為英國保守黨的歐洲議會議員丹尼爾•漢納在為《每日電訊報》撰寫的一篇發(fā)表文章中稱，英國的君主制和議會民主制是一種聯(lián)合一統(tǒng)的國家機構(gòu)。

He points out that the UK was the only European country to have fought in World War II and not lost. As a result, the British people didn’t have to start anew in 1945 because their political system hadn’t failed them. The British political system may seem old, but Hannan says that’s because it works.

他指出英國是二戰(zhàn)中唯一沒有戰(zhàn)敗的歐洲國家。因此，1945年二戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后，英國人不需要戰(zhàn)后重建，因為英國政體并未辜負他們。漢納說英國政體看似老舊，實則有效。

Hannan also says the monarchy is part of the British national identity. But a counter-argument in a Guardian editorial cites German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued that an enlightened culture is one that doesn’t rely on inherited traditions, authorities and social structures.

漢納還表示君主制是英國國民身份的一部分。對此，《衛(wèi)報》社論則援引了德國哲學家伊曼努爾•康德的觀點反駁道，開明的文化并不依賴于繼承下來的傳統(tǒng)、權(quán)力以及社會結(jié)構(gòu)。

As people in the Middle East and Africa shed their blood to fight for democratic rights, The Guardian editorial says it’s pathetic that the British people have no written constitution, no right to call themselves citizens (they are the Queen’s subjects) and still accept a “hierarchical, secretive, non-accountable” royal family.

《衛(wèi)報》社論評論道，當中東和非洲人民正為爭取民主權(quán)利而流血抗爭時，英國人民卻沒有一部文字憲法，也沒有資格自稱為公民(因為他們是女王的子民)，他們?nèi)栽趽碜o一個“等級制的、神秘的、毫無責任感的”王室，這著實可悲。