King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they die in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?

    The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above “mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.

    It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’ continuing popularity as heads of states. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

    Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today—embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

    The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

    While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

    It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service—as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

答案精析：由题干中的Monarchs和as heads of state可定位至原文第三段第一句。该句说到，正是这种对政治的明显超越，解释了君主作为国家元首持续受欢迎的现象。之后第三句又给出了另一条原因，大多数皇室家族之所以能够存活下来，是因为他们使选民避免了寻找一个没有争议但又受人尊敬的公众人物的困难。A项中的undoubted对应原文的non-controversial，respectable对应原文中的respected，故正确答案为A。

错项排除：原文并未提到传统和现实之间平衡的信息，B项内容无中生有，故排除。C项中的public figures有一定的干扰性，但要仔细分析，C项说的是给选民更多可以敬仰的公众人物，而原文意思是避免选民寻找受人尊敬的公众人物的困难，C项与原文意思相悖，故排除。第三段首句提到君主作为国家元首受欢迎的原因是其对政治的明显超越（apparent transcendence of politics），由此可知并非是政治因素使得他们受欢迎，D项内容与原文表述不符，故排除。

长难句分析：But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

本句为复杂句，句子主干是…most royal families have survived…，主语为most royal families，谓语是have survived。unlike their absolutist counterparts为介词短语作比较状语，in the Gulf and Asia为后置定语，修饰counterparts。句子后半部分的because引导原因状语从句，状语为主谓宾宾补结构（they allow voters to…）。

句意为：但与海湾地区和亚洲的君主专制不同的是，大多数皇室家族之所以能够存活下来，是因为他们使选民们避免了寻找一个没有争议但又受人尊敬的公众人物的困难。