Because it actually does have relevance to the institution of the monarchy and therefore the RF itself. Not the individuals, but what they represent.
[Disclaimer: this is nothing to do with Catherine personally, I hope she has a great day at Wimbledon and that she is left in peace to recover fully and completely.]
The reason the “lesser mortals” comment caused umbrage is because, let’s face it, this is what the symbolism of the RF reflects.
The RF stand high above the crowd on a balcony in fine clothes, waving. The ordinary people wait down below.
The RF drive through crowds of ordinary people while police outriders clear their path.
The rest of us struggle through traffic or travel on public transport.
The RF appear in horse drawn coaches and Rolls Royces wearing expensive clothes and priceless jewels. The rest of us do what we can afford.
These symbolic acts have not come about by chance. They are carefully curated. But everyone seems to accept them without critical thought or reflection about what they actually say?
It could be argued that the RF represent the United Kingdom and that our joint nations should be shown off to their best advantage, so the RF have to have the best of everything.
But does our Monarch really need twelve homes, massive private wealth and vast private estates in order to do that job effectively?
An elected President could have one town residence in which to hold state receptions, and perhaps a country residence to host overseas visitors, and that would be perfectly adequate. We could still have all the pomp and ceremony of the military marches etc and honour our history and traditions in that way.
I believe that the symbolism of the RF is crass and anachronistic in 2024. What is it telling us? That some people are intrinsically worth more than others and should be crowned with jewels and clothed in golden robes m, and feted, owing to an accident of birth?
It’s morally wrong and downright unjust imho. Why are we expected to stand in awe of wealth and opulence anyway? What has that really got to do with “god and country”? Surely people are a nation’s best assets? What message is that sending?
Maybe it’s my religious upbringing talking here, but to my mind a homeless man on the street has as much intrinsic worth as any member of the RF and should be afforded the same civility and respect.
We should not have representatives that highlight,, emphasise, or indeed encourage unjust divisions, disparity and inequality, in terms of wealth and opportunity.
We should have a representative who encourages unity, fairness and social coherence.
An elected representative would have at least had to fight their own battles, worked alongside ordinary people, shopped in supermarkets, travelled on ordinary flights, and above all, have reached their position through graft and effort, and would therefore have more awareness of what an ordinary person goes through and therefore a better understanding of what would help them.
Now countless people are going to say; well you will always have inequality in society and having a monarchy doesn’t change that. And I agree that we will always have inequality because we are all different, with varied capabilities.
But I feel that’s it is imperative that we try, as far as humanly possible, that every child starts with equal opportunities and as fair a chance as everyone else, to work hard, and do well and make a decent life for themselves and their family. And our elected representative, the man or woman at the top, should reflect that ambition.