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 Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today—embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities.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：根据题干中的have most to fear可定位至原文倒数第二段，该段是过渡段，说明英国王室最应该感到担忧，接着根据Charles定位至最后一段第二句。根据前后文语义，虽然女王保住了君主制的名誉，但危险将伴随查尔斯而来，因为他拥有奢侈的生活方式和非常严重的等级观念（expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world）。同时他也没能理解，君主制的存在是因为它们提供了一种服务，即作为无争议的、非政治性的国家元首。由此可推断出查尔斯并没有扮演好自己的角色，也没有意识到君主制的危机所在，故正确答案为D。

错项排除：原文对查尔斯的描述只提到了他的奢侈的生活方式和严重的等级观念，并没有提及他在政治上的态度，A项内容无中生有，故排除。原文虽然暗示到查尔斯的生活方式有可能是君主制走向末路的原因之一，但并没有提及有其他人建议他要改变生活方式，B项内容在原文中无依据，故排除。原文也并未提及查尔斯王子和共和党人之间的关系，故排除C项。