Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[LadyRohan]

I agree but at the same time America is better off not being a monarchy. It’s been like that for 400 years. Now I like Felipe but I am not ignorant to the fact that their monarchy is fragile and will likely go away. Wow some of you guys here just wish every county would be a monarchy. Please live in the real world.

The United States of America is a nation that’s barely 242 years old, and before that, it was all monarchical, whether its lands were under the rule of the British, French, Spanish, Mexican or any of the native tribes of the continent.
Whether or not you like Felipe as a person is not very relevant, and shows why so many Americans seemingly struggle to understand the concept of monarchy. It is not personal, and it has very little to do with personality. It is institutional.
Those who believe in the monarchy as a system of governance do not fight specifically for the rights of one person. It’s not an episode of ‘Idol’ or an issue of a celebrity magazine. Monarchy, as in the Spanish one for example, is how we choose to govern our lands, because it links us deeply to our past, and it functions well in our present situations.
The Spanish throne was the one who sponsored the voyage of Christopher Columbus more than five centuries ago, who then discovered the New World (the Americas), and without whom, your nations history would not come to be in the way that it did.
The Spanish throne is stable and historic, and just because it was vacant during the years of Franco, and restored following his death, does not mean it is unstable and at risk, today or from any foreseeable occurence tomorrow.

I would urge you to actually support your view with an argument or any kind of reason. It makes for a much more interesting debate. Any namecalling or random thoughts on who lives in ‘the real world’ or not, does not belong and contributes nothing to an informed exchange of ideas and perspectives.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I believe the US is doing very well as a republic.

Well, that post of mine you quoted is from February 2015, when my English (and Norwegian) writing skills were pretty bad (due to my dyslexia).

--------------------

And then to my thoughts about the Monarchy/Republic thing:

Why do I prefer an apolitical head of state with a parliamentary system and a prime minister, like we have in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Austria etc?

Well, here are two points that I think will answer it:
1. Yes, we have our problems in the above-mentioned countries as well, but most of these heads of states (especially constitutional monarchs, but also presidents) are unifying - and may have an approval rating at 80/90%.

2. A political head of government is always going to be divisive and almost always have an approval ratings below 50%, and should therefore not be the head of state.

--------------------

Why do I prefer a constitutional apolitical monarchy (with that I mean the European model) instead of an apolitical serimonial president?

Because I think it's the best political system one can have, and it's (IMO) good for democracy. - Here's why:

An apolitical president:
1. He/she will most likely be a politician (not very apolitical).

2. He/she has to be elected (either by the people or the parliament), and that can quickly turn into a divisive, political and (yes) crazy thing.

3. The president (although apolitical on the paper) will probably have many good contacts from a political life that he/she could use to intervene in matters that an apolitical head of state should stay FAR AWAY from.

An constitutional apolitical monarch:
1. He/she don't have the ability to intervene/interfere in political matters (yes, some European constitutional monarchs may have that power on paper, but not in reality, and won't use it anyway).

2. He/she have the opportunity (if they behave properly) to become unifying symbols that unify the nation.
It means that we appear in our thousands (millions in the UK) to celebrate them during jubilees/anniversaries and birthdays - and to honor them when they dies (there are almost somthing magical to it).

3. He/she will have some of the family members there (who in some cases also become unifying figures) to support them in their work.

--------------------

BTW, perhaps the mods could move this and some of the other posts to the ''Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits'' thread.

 

[Kitty1224]

Well, that post of mine you quoted is from February 2015, when my English (and Norwegian) writing skills were pretty bad (due to my dyslexia).

--------------------

And then to my thoughts about the Monarchy/Republic thing:

Why do I prefer an apolitical head of state with a parliamentary system and a prime minister, like we have in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Austria etc?

Well, here are two points that I think will answer it:
1. Yes, we have our problems in the above-mentioned countries as well, but most of these heads of states (especially constitutional monarchs, but also presidents) are unifying - and may have an approval rating at 80/90%.

2. A political head of government is always going to be divisive and almost always have an approval ratings below 50%, and should therefore not be the head of state.

--------------------

Why do I prefer a constitutional apolitical monarchy (with that I mean the European model) instead of an apolitical serimonial president?

Because I think it's the best political system one can have, and it's (IMO) good for democracy. - Here's why:

An apolitical president:
1. He/she will most likely be a politician (not very apolitical).

2. He/she has to be elected (either by the people or the parliament), and that can quickly turn into a divisive, political and (yes) crazy thing.

3. The president (although apolitical on the paper) will probably have many good contacts from a political life that he/she could use to intervene in matters that an apolitical head of state should stay FAR AWAY from.

An constitutional apolitical monarch:
1. He/she don't have the ability to intervene/interfere in political matters (yes, some European constitutional monarchs may have that power on paper, but not in reality, and won't use it anyway).

2. He/she have the opportunity (if they behave properly) to become unifying symbols that unify the nation.
It means that we appear in our thousands (millions in the UK) to celebrate them during jubilees/anniversaries and birthdays - and to honor them when they dies (there are almost somthing magical to it).

3. He/she will have some of the family members there (who in some cases also become unifying figures on their one) to support them in their work.

--------------------

BTW, perhaps the mods could move this and some of the other posts to
the ''Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits'' thread.

Differences of opinion. America is fine the way it is.

 

[Somebody]

As you keep raising this question, I decided to address it in this more appropriate general topic.

Also here: separate the personal popularity of individuals from a desire to keep the current form of state. This is not to be translated one-on-one, as likeability and popularity are entirely different from the question: "Do you like to elect your own head of state?"

But for so far all current monarchies are on the safe side indeed.

I'd say the question is mainly: do you want your fellow countrymen to elect the head of state? Because the 'you' is rather misleading as one person has very little influence

In my case: no, seeing how populism is a worldwide phenomenon, I much rather have a non-elected depoliticized head of state than someone (narrowly) winning a popularity contest (who in several cases is despised by the other half of the population) - not a great basis for being a unifying head of state. And in cases where it is less of a popularity contest that is many times because of a layered system - which gives the populace limited influence in who becomes their head of state. So, I am very happy with the European monarchies where the head of state is rather far removed from politics.

In addition, given that it is a hereditary position most monarchs are rather careful not to overstep their boundaries (and in the few cases they do various correction mechanisms are in place) to ensure the longevity of their dynasty.

 

[Muhler]

IMO nobility is secondary.

The questions I would ask: Is this family relevant to me?
Do I want this family, headed by X, who is married to Y, to be the foremost representatives of my country?
Do I reflect myself in them, in the sense that their virtues - and flaws - is something I can relate to? In other words: Are they a living embodiment of my people?
Are they a rallying point in times of crisis?
Is there a good reason to abolish an institution, that is a part of my culture, my history, my national identity? (Keep in mind that modern nationalism is only some 200 years old.)
Is my country democratic, despite being a monarchy?
Do I have freedom of speech, despite...?
Do I feel free, despite...?

If I can answer yes to all or most of these questions, the monarchy stays. If for no other reason than why fix something that works?

One of the favorite phrasings especially republican polls use is something like this: In a democracy do you feel the head of state ought to (in principle at least) be elected?
I'm now so old and cynical that while I in principle think all are equal, deep down I don't believe that. And it's sure not how the world is, in my experience. So why pretend?

 

[Mbruno]

I agree but at the same time America is better off not being a monarchy. It’s been like that for 400 years. Now I like Felipe but I am not ignorant to the fact that their monarchy is fragile and will likely go away. Wow some of you guys here just wish every county would be a monarchy. Please live in the real world.

By "America", do you mean the United States ? If so, the US has only been a republic for the last 237 years. Previously, it was a monarchy.


And of course there are countries in the American continent which are still monarchies like Canada for example.

 

[Hector Fenwick]

So what do you royals believe?

I discovered your forum by chance when I googled the word 'monarchist' and saw a meme.


Do you just want kings with ceremonial duties while the country is ruled by democratically elected governments? Or do you believe in a real monarchy, where the king actually is in power?

 

[Muhler]

Welcome, and congratulations on your first post.

A constitutional monarchy for me, please.
Where the monarch has some, predominantly, formal powers. Like appointing and dismissing governments, signing laws and similar.

A non-democratic system, with a monarch (who is unelected naturally) depends too much on the person.
Some monarchs (dictators, life-time presidents and so on) may be very qualified and their rule may be very beneficial for their countries and people. (To paraphrase Churchill: Democracy is not the best form of government, but the best possible.) Others on the other hand may be inept and a walking disaster for their countries. There are countless historical examples of that.

In fact in Europe in the 1600's where Absolutism became fashionable there were actually some royals who pondered whether Absolutism was really such a good idea in the long run. - After all many top-royals were well-educated, well-informed and genuinely conscientious in regards to the interests of their people. Having total power is also a huge responsibility and no doubt frightening to most.
I imagine most absolute monarchs would in secret often have had self-doubts, unless they were insane or complete morons.

 

[Blog Real]

I discovered your forum by chance when I googled the word 'monarchist' and saw a meme.


Do you just want kings with ceremonial duties while the country is ruled by democratically elected governments? Or do you believe in a real monarchy, where the king actually is in power?

I believe in modern monarchies where kings have ceremonial duties while the country is ruled by democratically elected governments. This is, in my opinion, the most democratic way for a country.
I believe that in this forum most people prefer this kind of monarchical regime than the absolute monarchies.

 

[Hector Fenwick]

So, I take it most of you here support a royal republic. Myself, I'm a true monarchist. I believe in the idea of a constitutional monarchy, a system where a constitution protecting elementary human rights exists but the executive and legislative powers are in the hands of a monarch.

 

[Muhler]

So, I take it most of you here support a royal republic. Myself, I'm a true monarchist. I believe in the idea of a constitutional monarchy, a system where a constitution protecting elementary human rights exists but the executive and legislative powers are in the hands of a monarch.

Would you care to elaborate? ?

I have a little hypothetical scenario:
We have a monarch, a king, who at a ripe age took over after a very competent and respected predecessor.
The predecessor had all her life been a living role model in regards to personal integrity, but also in regards to more traditional values say as a spouse.
The new monarch has turned out to be less than interested in pressing political affairs of his country - in fact he spends a great deal of his time abroad, living a jet-set life. Often with a selection of attractive women of a younger model than his wife at home.

His sister however, is of caliber similar to the predecessor. She enjoys the respect and even devotion of the people. She is often out and about on royal duties showing how she cares for people - and when she talks, people listen...

- What are your thoughts regarding that situation?

 

[Denville]

So, I take it most of you here support a royal republic. Myself, I'm a true monarchist. I believe in the idea of a constitutional monarchy, a system where a constitution protecting elementary human rights exists but the executive and legislative powers are in the hands of a monarch.

so no parliament or representation?

W

In fact in Europe in the 1600's where Absolutism became fashionable there were actually some royals who pondered whether Absolutism was really such a good idea in the long run. - After all many top-royals were well-educated, well-informed and genuinely conscientious in regards to the interests of their people. Having total power is also a huge responsibility and no doubt frightening to most.
I imagine most absolute monarchs would in secret often have had self-doubts, unless they were insane or complete morons.

which many of them were....

 

[Muhler]

which many of them were....

Oh yes.

Or they became insane or perhaps rather tyrannical and came to believe in their own ineffability. - A hazard if you surround yourself with sycophants.

Henry VIII was a well-educated, enlightened, with a relatively high moral code (for his time and position) and had seemingly every intention of being a benign king. Many around him had high hopes for his reign.
- And we all know how he turned out... He became a tyrant. Like so many absolute kings throughout history - and dictators too.

But back to monarchies. Some monarchies, like the Aztecs, picked their monachs from a pool of suited candidates. What are your thoughts about that, Hector Fenwick?

 

[Hector Fenwick]

Would you care to elaborate? ?

I have a little hypothetical scenario:
We have a monarch, a king, who at a ripe age took over after a very competent and respected predecessor.
The predecessor had all her life been a living role model in regards to personal integrity, but also in regards to more traditional values say as a spouse.
The new monarch has turned out to be less than interested in pressing political affairs of his country - in fact he spends a great deal of his time abroad, living a jet-set life. Often with a selection of attractive women of a younger model than his wife at home.

His sister however, is of caliber similar to the predecessor. She enjoys the respect and even devotion of the people. She is often out and about on royal duties showing how she cares for people - and when she talks, people listen...

- What are your thoughts regarding that situation?

It seems you have something very certain in mind. Is this some real story?


As for my thoughts about monarchy, I plan to write an extensive article on my blog next Sunday. I'll send you the link.

 

[Muhler]

It seems you have something very certain in mind. Is this some real story?


As for my thoughts about monarchy, I plan to write an extensive article on my blog next Sunday. I'll send you the link.

It is based on a current monarchy, that has quite a few similarities to the type of monarchy you have outlined as what you prefer.
And the example is meant as a problem in a modern context. I.e. a monarch who is not particularly interested in ruling his country and that is a problem if the monarch has direct political power, wouldn't you say?

 

[Hector Fenwick]

If he's not interested in ruling, why not let someone else do it?

 

[Muhler]

If he's not interested in ruling, why not let someone else do it?

Oh, he loves being treated like the king, but not doing the work...

 

[Denville]

If he's not interested in ruling, why not let someone else do it?

but that would negate the very idea of an absolute ruling monarchy. If "someone else" can take over, why should absolute power be invested in the monarch?

 

[victor1319]

The Future will be a Feudal System

The good thing about the future: She is unknown!

And everbody has his/her predictions, which might or might not become true. In a democracy you can vote folks, which made error after error in predicting what might come, simply out of office. And this is a good thing!

Nevertheless I am convinced, we will see in the future a more feudal system. A future with interstellar space travel that is. Because the endevours of building stargates... whatever... terraforming new planets and so on... will lead to a more planned economy, since the whole stuff is very costly. And more planned economies demand a more planned society and this will lead to a more feudal system.

Not to a socialist one: Because socialism has no theory of Credit! But money is mostly credit - so, no wonder socialists are always in dire need of money: They have no ideas how to create credit - Karl Marx wrote nothing about a credit system!

So the future will be more feudal - either a feudalism of the enterprises or of individuals.

I tend to say a feudalism of the indviduals. The future, to pick up from the beginning of my elaborate here, is inherently unknown. There will be struggles about the decisions to make into the unknown future. Human beings, if enraged, tend to even kill each other... - what means warlords will appear. And warlords are already a nobility. I rest my case and hope my predictions were not too boring or unpleasently violent.

I mean, we're close to Easter...

 

[Muhler]

Oh, we don't even have to wait for interstellar travel.

Colonies in the Solar System, once they have become self-sustaining, will become independent - and as such develop their own system of government and legislation suited to their needs and challenges.
Whether some of them will become a monarchy over time, that I doubt very much.
That some of them will eventually become authoritarian, that I find very plausible, however.

Once we hopefully have interstellar travel, any colonies outside the Solar System will become independent from day one.
There can be no such thing as an Earth Empire. It goes against the laws of nature.
The nearest solar system is 4 light years away.
No communication can travel faster than light.
So no urgent messages from a "governor" at Proxima Centauri B can't reach Earth until 4 years later, and a reply with directions can't reach the colony until 8 years after the crisis there began! An hopelessly long response time.

Even it it was possible to travel via wormholes (and I doubt the Universe is that forthcoming) you just close the tube at one end... And the colony has total independence.
And if we go total sci-fi: Try convince people on Earth to fund an insanely expensive expedition to regain control over a colony light-years away, by force.

 

[Hector Fenwick]

but that would negate the very idea of an absolute ruling monarchy. If "someone else" can take over, why should absolute power be invested in the monarch?

Then she can just give the throne to someone who actually wants to rule.

 

[victor1319]

Once we hopefully have interstellar travel, any colonies outside the Solar System will become independent from day one.
There can be no such thing as an Earth Empire. It goes against the laws of nature.

I am afraid, you have not watched these documentaries: "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" in short "Star Wars". Or you're neither Jedi nor Sith, but an anarchist...

Well, predictions are always difficult - especially about the future ?... But the tech will be invented - it always were.

 

[Denville]

Then she can just give the throne to someone who actually wants to rule.

and how would that person be chosen? what would happen if she/he wnated the throne back again? What if the person who "wanted to rule" was an evil monster hated by the people?

 

[victor1319]

and how would that person be chosen? what would happen if she/he wnated the throne back again? What if the person who "wanted to rule" was an evil monster hated by the people?

This reminds me of the "Merowinger" or "Merovingians" the very old nobility of the germanic tribe of the "Franks".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Merovingian_kingdom_(481–751)

The gave too much power to their "Hausmeiers" - today one would say Chancellors or Prime Ministers - and were deposed by them. Their clerks founded a new dynasty: The Carolingians!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Carolingian_empire_(751–843)

The most famous Carolingian became Karl the Great - Charlemagne.

 

[Muhler]

I am afraid, you have not watched these documentaries: "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" in short "Star Wars". Or you're neither Jedi nor Sith, but an anarchist...

Well, predictions are always difficult - especially about the future ?... But the tech will be invented - it always were.

I have, with great delight. ?
And Star Trek, naturally. - There can be only one captain of the Enterprise, Picard.

Prefer Arthur C. Clarke's novels though, They are still brilliant and some of them deal very much with the problems (or rather impossibilities) of an interstellar empire. Or even one within the Solar System.
Try read Songs of Distant Earth and Earthlight.

Then she can just give the throne to someone who actually wants to rule.

One of the first priorities of most absolute monarchs was to ensure there was an official heir as soon as possible. Partly to ensure the bloodline and partly to avoid civil war.
It will take many years, up to several decades even, to ascertain whether an heir is suited/willing or not.
In an absolute monarchy there are a lot of people who have invested a lot in the heir. If the monarch suddenly bypass the heir, they are going to be most annoyed! - They may very well take up arms for the now bypassed royal, to protect their interests.
Whether the royal they are fighting for is interested in ruling or not is a minor problem... They will "help" him.

 

[Denville]

I have, with great delight. ?
And Star Trek, naturally. - There can be only one captain of the Enterprise, Picard.

Prefer Arthur C. Clarke's novels though, They are still brilliant and some of them deal very much with the problems (or rather impossibilities) of an interstellar empire. Or even one within the Solar System.
Try read Songs of Distant Earth and Earthlight.



One of the first priorities of most absolute monarchs was to ensure there was an official heir as soon as possible. Partly to ensure the bloodline and partly to avoid civil war.
It will take many years, up to several decades even, to ascertain whether an heir is suited/willing or not.
In an absolute monarchy there are a lot of people who have invested a lot in the heir. If the monarch suddenly bypass the heir, they are going to be most annoyed! - They may very well take up arms for the now bypassed royal, to protect their interests.
Whether the royal they are fighting for is interested in ruling or not is a minor problem... They will "help" him.

All very true... Autocracy was usually a bloody form of rule..

 

[Hector Fenwick]

WHY MONARCHY IS BETTER THAN DEMOCRACY
​

1. If you want something done, do it yourself.
There are several known jokes about how inefficient committees are. It doesn't matter whether you opt to call them committees, parliaments, councils or whatever. Such bodies cannot effectively run a state. That's why one person should be left alone to make decisions. At least that one person, with their strengths and weaknesses, will be able to produce some positive results, at least every now and then, as opposed to committees, who, as the joke says, bicker for ages only to end up deciding that nothing can be done.


2. More speed and less bureaucracy.
In democracy, processes are slow and, whenever something goes wrong, magically, it's nobody's fault! Every entity involved in governance will always claim that it's another entity's fault. In monarchy, where, ultimately, all powers are gathered in the hands of one person, that person cannot avoid responsibility. And of course, in monarchy, whenever something needs to be done fast, the monarch can take charge and do it fast, with no unnecessary bureaucracy and protocols.


3. Less corruption and demagogy.
A monarch can't be bribed. A monarch fears no political cost. A monarch cannot be blackmailed by possessors of wealth, who, in democracy, often use fake scandals to blackmail politicians whose decisions could be beneficial otherwise. Even the most unskilled monarch is not as detrimental to their country as they would be in a democracy. Even the most skilled democratically elected leader ends up compromising.


4. More stability.
In democracy, power changes hands constantly. It is highly unlikely that people will ever decide to elect the same person more than once or twice (even if that person is really skilled) thus giving that person the time needed to produce some really lasting, positive results.



5. It is more likely than a skilled leader will show up.
Think of it. Who is more likely to turn out to be a skilled leader? Someone elected by a huge mass of people who have zero knowledge of how a state's affairs work (democracy)? Someone who did another job until, in their 50s, they suddenly decided to become politicians (democracy)? Or someone who has been trained since birth to rule, who has set their mind and heart to that goal since the day they were born (hereditary monarchy)?


6. It was the norm for millenia.
With very few exceptions, democracy existed nowhere until about 200 years ago. All countries had been monarchies since the dawn of human history. Do you think all those countless generations of people would have accepted that system if it wasn't indeed effective?


IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not talking about a dictatorship, a system where a deranged person can do whatever they want. True monarchy, at least as I envision it, is accompanied by a constitution that protects elementary human rights (life, freedom of expression and religion etc), a constitution that the monarch won't be able to touch. But, that aside, I firmly believe that all executive and legislative powers should be gathered in the hands of a monarch. A powerful central government is necessary for a country's prosperity.
​

 

[victor1319]

WHY MONARCHY IS BETTER THAN DEMOCRACY
​

This is a very anglo-american argumentation you are offering!

Nothing about the population: education level, skill set level, religion..., culture etc.

Nothing about the economy: industrialization grade, size of the economy, what kind of currency, market development, net importer or exporter

Instead: getting things done...

What would be the difference betweeen your lifetime monarch and the two term presidency of the USA? Trump has more power, than the Emperor Wilhelm II. of Germany ever had (but only for 8 years... ).

 

[Blog Real]

Future monarchs of Europe.
I decided to make here a post about the younger generations of future monarchs of Europe.
Who are the ones who have the greatest chance of becoming monarchs in the future? What's your opinion?

1. Prince Christian of Denmark
2. Prince George of Cambridge
3. Prince Charles of Luxembourg
4. Prince Jacques of Mónaco
5. Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uZ_7M3-n...f43f626ae5c08906669b5dfd3ca_a9415878_1280.jpg

1. Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant
2. Princess Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway
3. Leonor, Princess of Asturias
4. Princess Estelle of Sweden, Duchess of Östergötland
5. Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iiuu1gc1...a1541c589e2f4e176d60c253602_86ab5bb7_1280.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sKnvO4cR...474_671577930294953_3034731799341623624_n.jpg

 

[Mbruno]

Future monarchs of Europe.
I decided to make here a post about the younger generations of future monarchs of Europe.
Who are the ones who have the greatest chance of becoming monarchs in the future? What's your opinion?

1. Prince Christian of Denmark
2. Prince George of Cambridge
3. Prince Charles of Luxembourg
4. Prince Jacques of Mónaco
5. Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uZ_7M3-n...f43f626ae5c08906669b5dfd3ca_a9415878_1280.jpg

1. Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant
2. Princess Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway
3. Leonor, Princess of Asturias
4. Princess Estelle of Sweden, Duchess of Östergötland
5. Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iiuu1gc1...a1541c589e2f4e176d60c253602_86ab5bb7_1280.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sKnvO4cR...474_671577930294953_3034731799341623624_n.jpg

Assuming of course they all outlive their predecessors, the only one out of the above who realistically might not have a throne to ascend is Leonor, Princess of Asturias. All the others are probably fairly safe to succeed, even Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, whose future is sometimes questioned too.