Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[Feologild]

I think a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy is a fine system.

 

[M. Payton]

Wow, did I scare people away with my rants, sorry guys.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. IMO I think support is probably returning to normal levels since the whole "paradise papers" thing is now mainly focused on the other elite rather than the Her Majesty, honestly though would it hurt for people to do proper research.

Oh you did not scare me away, in fact I totally agree with you 1,000% about the Republicans. It is an ego trip IMHO that they are on, loud mouth shouting so that they will feel good about themselves and make every one around them seem like they are working for the people. H*ll, they work for themselves only just like the congress in my country does, they work for themselves and their friends and the heck with the rest of America. Power and greed that is what the Republicans are all about!?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am not after power or greed and I find describing republicans that was insulting - as I am sure you meant it to be.

I was a monarchist when I joined this board mind you but it is the information here that turned me into a republican as I realised the full extent of the corruption and misuse of position that the BRF use e.g. William using a loophole to get into the RAF as a pilot when he couldn't get there with his eyesight. As a future king he should be above reproach but he isn't, the constant whinging by the two princes about how hard they have things, the Queen and Charles using off-shore accounts to avoid tax (again it may be legal but as the monarch and heir they also have to be totally above reproach and they aren't). I won't even go into the adultery from so many of the family (trying hard to find any of them who haven't had affairs or cheated on their partners).

UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have. Like it or not we have to accept someone based simply on who their parents are and then have to accept whomever they choose as their consort regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they may be to represent us.

We also have a situation where the future King of Australia and his siblings in a number of different generations actively supports teams playing Australia and that is unacceptable. William even lead the campaign against Australia to host the World Cup. Imagine if Australia had won the rights to the 2022 World Cup and William was king by then and he had to come to it - the ultimate hypocrisy.

Each country should have the right to elect its Head of State knowing who the consort will be - sure we may end up with a person who is seen as unsuitable by many people as is the case with Trump - but at least we would know when it was time for them to leave.

When royals married within a narrow group there was a purpose but now they can marry anyone why should the girl who lives on my left as a kid be able to have the position and power associated with being the consort while the girl on the other side can't just because of who they married?

Surely the public should have a say on the Head of State and their Consort are and that is what republicans want. I am confident that the next time Australia votes on becoming a republic we will vote Yes because they question will be worded in such a way that the majority of the nation will vote that way unlike 1999 when even many republicans voted No because the option they wanted wasn't there.

To truly live in a democracy the people have to have a say in all the people who are the face of the nation and that really does apply to the Head of State.

I wonder how Frozen Royalist would feel if they didn't get to have a say in their Head of State every four years. It is easy to admire something you don't have to live with but for those of us who do and want to change there is not need to be insulting about us but accept that we have our reasons and mine are simple - I want a Head of State who lives and works only for Australia and not for any other nation. I don't want a person appointed by some foreigner but by the people of Australia. I don't even care if that person was born in Australia - so long as they are a citizen of Australia and Australia only.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Look Iluvbertie my apologies, I was just well blowing up about the @#$% I keep reading on websites like the Guardian and other mainstream websites like that. I do think it would be well catastrophic for my country if we didn't have a say every four years and even though I support the Commonwealth Realm to continue to exist I do think that Canada and Australia should have their own monarchs rather then continue to share with the UK.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret, the reason how I became an American monarchist is a rather fascinating tale. I grew up during the George W. Bush years listening about how we should respect the president, honor the founding fathers and the republican principles and what not but at the same time I kept watching and hearing others dissing the "system" in America everywhere. What really started me down on this path is a little incident that occurred while I was in Summer Camp. We were waiting for the counselors to get back and some of the campers took notice of this painted wooden cutout that looked like the President of the US at the time. The campers began to attack the cutout, even beheading it while calling it names and insults you'd hear on comedy shows and what not. I didn't take part in this but it did make me begin to questions about the "system". Now flash foreword to the Obama years while I was in middle and high school, it just seemed like the same thing but with the added racist insults this time. Now as mush as I respected and supported Obama (my apologies to any conservatives that read this, I consider myself to be one of the few centrist/moderate monarchists rather than conservative like the Texan Mad Monarchist) I couldn't help but think what was the point of it all in the end? I mean sure you can choose your own head of state but is it really worth it in the end?

It was then I began to take notice of monarchs like Queen Elizabeth II, Emperor Akihito, the former King Michael I of Romania, the legends of good kings and emperors about how they made good for their countries while compared to presidents of nations like Italy and Portugal whom regularly slept with women a third of their age, I know there have been royals that have done the same but still. My monarchism also stems with my concept of nations applying order, security, familiarity, and prosperity in order to be successful I mean look at Belgium, Japan, Morocco and the UK compared to Myanmar, Venezuela, Egypt and Hungary, does it not make sense to be a monarchist when you look at the facts how several of the remaining constitutional monarchies have enjoyed stability for the most part while several of these republics deal with coups, economic instability, moronic idealists, etc. Don't even get me started on Trump because I think the fact that he ran for president just reinforces the idea that republicanism isn't cracked up as the die hard supporters make it. So in the end I just decided to go a different path compared to my fellow Americans, whenever I try to bring up the fact that I'm a monarchist to my friends and classmates they tend to think of me as someone who is well "not in reality" in their opinion.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. for the whole football controversy thing, I'm sorry that members of the House of Windsor actively worked against Australia getting the 2022 world cup I've got nothing here and you have an excellent point.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Defacing images of the Head of State happens in monarchies as well.

I work at a school that removed the one image of HM we had about 20 years ago and there was no outcry.

The staff in the primary section of my school have an image of HM though - sitting on the throne on the door of the ladies loo (toilet) and the kids think that is funny. I believe there is one in their girls' toilets as well but have never been in there. No one has complained about the placement of the image which says a lot about the views of staff, parents and students - that is where she belongs.

Many public places have removed their images of HM as being incompatible with modern Australia as she represents everything that is against our equal society.

 

[wyevale]

our equal society.

Two words 'First Australians' ! The reality is your Society is FAR from equal, and taking down the picture of your Head of State doesn't make it any the more so...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I regularly visit Bournemouth, Boscombe, Poole, Studland Bay and Weymouth, that area. Tory heartland I assume. Maybe it is depending who you speak, but honesty forces me to say that even in that relatively wealthy and carefree piece of England there was only indifference or sarcasm when the royal family came into conversation.

I remember that I (Dutch) and a friend (Danish) went to a posh party and even there the royal family was characterized as a bunch of freeloaders. This was not in impoverished slums in Nottingham, Leeds or Sheffield but in a posh establishment near Winchester Cathedral. This made me and my Danish friend wonder how deep it really is, that suggested popularity of the royal family, both of us coming from monarchies ourselves.

 

[wyevale]

I'm not surprised by your experience at the Party Duc_et_Pair, In my experience the affluent Upper Middle Classes [particularly if in 'academe'] affect to despise the Royal Family, whilst the Middle-Middle and Lower-Middle Classes are more supportive.The Working Classes are pretty solid in their support [and always have been].
It is difficult to generalise of course, but given the alternative - a President Blair [or equivalent], barring a MAJOR change of heart, the Monarchy is the 'preferred' form of Government for most people. It HAS served us well, and people look abroad and 'don't like what they see'.

 

[Sophronisba]

You know, as an American, I can see that there are some disadvantages to a monarch as head of state but in many ways I think it is a better system than the one we have in the United States.

First the president is supposed to be both head of government and head of state. Being the head of government is already a big job in itself and there are times when the two jobs conflict; there was a brouhaha a few years ago, for example, when then-president Obama did not attend a memorial service at (I think it was) Auschwitz because he had to meet with the leader of Saudi Arabia instead. Someone else from the administration went, but it made people angry. Because those kinds of things come up I think it would be better if we separated head of government and head of state.

But the bigger problem, to my mind, is that when you vote for the head of state and the other person wins, especially when there is an unusually bitter campaign, it's difficult to feel that the head of state represents you. A few months ago when there was the apartment fire in London, my husband and I watched the Queen and Prince William meeting with the people who'd lost their homes and I said to him at the time, "If something like that happened here, to us, and the president came I couldn't deal with it. If he showed up I would feel actively worse." (I'm not saying that to be political, just to illustrate the problem when you have an unusually divisive head of state.)

The best thing about the monarchy in the UK, to my mind, is that people don't choose the monarch, and the monarch doesn't take political positions publicly, which means in theory that she belongs to all the people equally. It's not a perfect system, but I'm not sure what would be. I've seen proposals here in the US that we separate head of state from head of government and make it an electable position with, say, a twenty-year term so that the bitterness of the campaign fades, and maybe that would work. But I do see definite advantages to an apolitical monarchy.

 

[Somebody]

I am not after power or greed and I find describing republicans that was insulting - as I am sure you meant it to be.

(...)

UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have. Like it or not we have to accept someone based simply on who their parents are and then have to accept whomever they choose as their consort regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they may be to represent us.

We also have a situation where the future King of Australia and his siblings in a number of different generations actively supports teams playing Australia and that is unacceptable. William even lead the campaign against Australia to host the World Cup. Imagine if Australia had won the rights to the 2022 World Cup and William was king by then and he had to come to it - the ultimate hypocrisy.

(...)

I wonder how Frozen Royalist would feel if they didn't get to have a say in their Head of State every four years. It is easy to admire something you don't have to live with but for those of us who do and want to change there is not need to be insulting about us but accept that we have our reasons and mine are simple - I want a Head of State who lives and works only for Australia and not for any other nation. I don't want a person appointed by some foreigner but by the people of Australia. I don't even care if that person was born in Australia - so long as they are a citizen of Australia and Australia only.

The system of having (essentially) a UK monarch also be the monarch of other countries indeed results in complicated issues as the UK's interests are not necessarily the same of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to name the largest ones). So, I understand that people within these countries are not that supportive of having a head of state that hardly ever is in your own country. Instead of becoming republics an alternative could be to stay monarchies but with their own monarch (in my fantasy world I once figured we could divide Canada, Australia and New Zealand among the Queen's other children). That would at least solve part of the issue.

Regarding the partners, I am in favour of some parliamentary control (as we have in the Netherlands). A system in which only the monarch (and sometimes in theory the government) seems less able to weed unsuitable candidates out. Of course, the born prince or princess could still marry but would loose his/her rights to the throne by doing so.

 

[M. Payton]

Iluvbertie:
First my apologizes to you about Republicans, I worded my comment wrong for I should of said I am very disgusted with American Republicanism. Yet I do get sick of the ugly backlash against HM, she was born into this position and did not ask for it yet she made the very best of it and has made great changes within the monarch over time. I respect and admire her very much and what she has done and respect is not a given in my book just because a person has money, power or title, it is how you treat others in life.

By the way, I seriously doubt HM sits down and personally invest money anywhere......she has advisors that do that type of thing and since there is lots of investments around the world and tons of financial reports to go through, I bet she is not even aware of where it all is at this time in her life. Can anyone imagine how many reports that would be each day or month....would take an army of people to go through all it I would think. Not just one tiny bank account here or investment there..........like I have. I don't think that should be held against her at all....

As for men in power that sleep with women half their age.........that has been going on since the beginning of time and it is not ever going to change in any one life time now or later.......again just human nature at one of it's worst habits yet not the worst either.

This I will say, I am totally disgusted and fed up with my *Congress* here, have been saying this for many decades now. The job of being president is to me just a person that sits in that chair and does what *Congress* says, he has IMHO no real power. He jumps to the tune of congress who are IMHO a bunch of greedy soulless group of people all out for them selves and no one else and this is for all the Democrats and Republicans alike. Regardless of who is sitting in that chair right now, or last term, this country is broken and that is for the poor, the middle class (what is left of it), the military and the homeless. The rest live off the fat of what their investments in foreign countries bring to the table with tons of huge tax credits in their back pocket (none of those tax credits ever come to the rest of this country)........and believe I do not want to get started on my dislike of companies in this country for I have written enough letters to CEO's and congress through my life time to fill a book.

I believe everyone should have a right to say who governs your country and in every monarchy or world leader and their family there will always be the ones that are thinking that they are above the law of the land. There will always be those that will get in the door the back way, that to me is just human nature at one of it's worst traits but not the worst.

I think it is disgusting and ignorant for anyone to deface any monument that is out there for people to see, that monument is for all the people not just a select few. In this country they are now taking away monuments of the past.........there is no way in H*ll a person can erase the past of their counties heritage by taking away a monument.......the past is just what it is and is in history forever.

Anyhow one thing I have learned in reading all those history books that I have, every kingdom, empire and world power today will all at one time crumble to dust and vanish in time when greed and corruption take over be they a monarchy or not......happening as we speak in many countries around the world, slowly but surly.

I do admire all that education that you have, that to me is priceless and as you read this I am sure you know that I am not like that for I let other things get in the way of what I call...life!

And no I do not like the word.......Republic or Democrat either......so what is left for the people?

 

[Osipi]

After reading Iluvbertie's post, I decided to delve into getting a bit more information about how the UK government works and to be honest, I do like it a whole lot better than the party system here in the US.

Parliament does have its separate parties in the House of Commons but with electing a MP in each constituency and the party with the majority in the House of Commons forms the government. Then there's the House of Lords that scrutinizes and checks and challenges the work of the government. They work independent of each other but for the same goals. With the US elected members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, party politics come into play during the election, stay in play during their terms and more often than not, they are more concerned with what the other party is doing than actually working with each other to get things done. At least that is how it seems to me.

I think that having an apolitical head of state such as the Queen is does far more for the unification and the continuity of a system of government than having an elected head of state. With no real constitutional powers such as the US president has "executive orders", the Queen warns and advises but does not interfere. She represents each and every one of the citizens.

I think anyone taking a good long look at the US system today will agree that our head of state is anything but representative of *all* the people. There are just too many divisions and it starts with a very division between party politics right out the election campaign starting gate. Us against Them.

At least with the Queen of the UK and Commonwealth countries, you have a Queen that is everybody's Queen and a very beloved one at that. Take that away and all you are left with is politics. Politics divide a realm. People have stated they're worried that Charles may be too "political". Imagine if everything to do with the country ends up being political.

Having an elected head of state is not going to bring costs down and to be honest, I think it would drive the cost of the government up.

From the Washington Post:

The final price tag for the 2016 election is in: $6.5 billion for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org. The presidential contest — primaries and all — accounts for $2.4 billion of that total. The other $4 billion or so went to congressional races.

That's just the election alone.

 

[wyevale]

All this seems true [to me] Osipi, and the division inevitable in a system with a [Political] Head of State is replicated in any places elsewhere. In France for example, MANY feel that their President does not, and cannot represent them.

 

[M. Payton]

Opisi:
Again you have said it so much better then I could have, and I totally agree with all your points and facts.

 

[Pranter]

Does that include all the personal finances used by the candidates in their own campaigns?


LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

.
To truly live in a democracy the people have to have a say in all the people who are the face of the nation and that really does apply to the Head of State.

I believe that, in a democracy, people should have a say in who governs them, and should be able to change the government periodically if they so wish in free and fair elections. Generally speaking, that is true in most European monarchies today. I don't think, however, that the people should necessarily have a say in who the ceremonial Head of State is. In fact, an opposing case can be made that the unelected nature of the office of Head of State is precisely what guarantees that the office remains non-partisan and politically neutral, as it should be expected from a ceremonial position.

In any case, in many supposedly democratic republics, the Head of State is not chosen by the people anyway. The president of the Federal Republic of Germany is elected for example by a federal convention consisting of members of the Lower House of Parliament and representatives of the state (Länder) parliaments. Even in the US, the original intention of the so-called Founding Fathers was that the president would be chosen by the states, which would appoint the electors in the Electoral College , rather than being elected by the people. The fact that all states now link the slate of their respective electors to a statewide popular election gives the misleading impression that there is national popular election for POTUS, but that is technically not the case.

 

[Parterre]

Wow, did I scare people away with my rants, sorry guys.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. IMO I think support is probably returning to normal levels since the whole "paradise papers" thing is now mainly focused on the other elite rather than the Her Majesty, honestly though would it hurt for people to do proper research.

Wow! Another American who is angered by republicanism-- despite living in a republic-- as I am!

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Well I'm not really angered, just rather annoyed that things just keep spiraling into undemocratic territories in my opinion. I mean Trump was elected by the Electoral College not popular vote and don't tell me that this isn't controversial like my classmates. I mean you don't see this in the UK do you and don't get me started on gerrymandering.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well I'm not really angered, just rather annoyed that things just keep spiraling into undemocratic territories in my opinion. I mean Trump was elected by the Electoral College not popular vote and don't tell me that this isn't controversial like my classmates. I mean you don't see this in the UK do you and don't get me started on gerrymandering.

-Frozen Royalist

Yes - it is possible in a system like the UK and Aus for the party with the most votes to not be able to form a government as it comes down to number of seats and not number of votes just as it did in the last US election.

We get 'hung' parliaments where neither side has a majority and then has to do deals with minor parties, often going against election promises to gain power. This is the very problem that could be confronting Queensland following yesterday's vote as it is possible that neither major party will get the required 47 seats to form a majority government.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why? So long as it is the theory that is being discussed rather than the individuals there should be no problem.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that posts (and responses) relating to American Politics / remarks about Obama and Trump have been deleted.

 

[Andy T]

Having had the good fortune to live in two parliamentary monarchies and two republics, my preference is for a parliamentary monarchy. To me, it serves to separate the business of "government" from the "whole life" of a society/nation or state.

It's right and proper, in my view, that a society should be "governed" by people it chooses and who are accountable to it, in the form of direct democratic elections (and an independent judiciary).

However, while a government - and its head - is one thing, a head of state should be seen a something else. Here, it's not about making & executing decisions or choices, doing what has to/should be done accoridng to one party point of view but being a collective symbol/representative/embodiment of the whole: the people(s), the culture(s), heritage & traditions, the history, the land, the "spirit" & values of a society.

It's true that a "ceremonial" president could occupy this rôle and there are examples of those who have performed it very well. I also accept that some societies would consider that electing this person is a statement of values in itself. Yet a monarchy, backed up by the concept of a royal family (of different ages, at different stages in life, with different interests & characters) is more 'comprehensive' in its coverage and reach.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that this thread has had a title change having previously been the Monarchy-V-Republic thread. As well as discussing the various positives and negatives of monarchies and republics, you may also discuss the benefits of having either one or the other along with the possible future of monarchies and/or republics throughout the world.

 

[Mbruno]

The system of having (essentially) a UK monarch also be the monarch of other countries indeed results in complicated issues as the UK's interests are not necessarily the same of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to name the largest ones). So, I understand that people within these countries are not that supportive of having a head of state that hardly ever is in your own country.

I don't think the issue you raise is relevant because, in practice, everything that the Queen does in the UK is done in Australia, Canada or New Zealand by the Governor General, including advancing the realm's interests in oveseas trade missions, and in state or official visits. In fact, for the realms, the choice between a republic or the continuation of the monarchy is not really about replacing the Queen as Head of State, but rather, in practical terms, about replacing the well-tested office of Governor General with an elected president who would be a big leap in the dark.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think the issue you raise is relevant because, in practice, everything that the Queen does in the UK is done in Australia, Canada or New Zealand by the Governor General, including advancing the realm's interests in oveseas trade missions, and in state or official visits. In fact, for the realms, the choice between a republic or the continuation of the monarchy is not really about replacing the Queen as Head of State, but rather, in practical terms, about replacing the well-tested office of Governor General with an elected president who would be a big leap in the dark.

I agree that in practical terms the governor-general will be replaced, however, exactly because of that I understand why these countries are more likely to become republics. They don't have the benefit of having a royal family 'in-house' but instead a GG who is replaced after a few years and another is nominated. So, they don't have the advantages that come with a monarchy (such as having an active representation by a royal family - the consistency etc.) nor those that come with a republic (such as some say in who your head of state is).

 

[Marengo]

A rather interesting article from today's NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

[...]
A recent study that examined the economic performance of monarchies versus republics bolsters their views. Led by Mauro F. Guillén, a management professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the study found “robust and quantitatively meaningful evidence” that monarchies outperform other forms of government.

Count Nikolai Tolstoy said most people “do not appreciate the important ideological reasons for a monarchy.”

Far from being a dying system, the study said, “monarchies are surprisingly prevalent around the world.” They provide a “stability that often translates into economic gains”; they are better at protecting property rights and checking abuses of power by elected officials; and they have higher per-capita national incomes, the study said.

[...]

The article is based on a new study by the sociologist Prof. Mauro F. Guillén from the University of Pennsylvania.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

A rather interesting article from today's NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront



The article is based on a new study by the sociologist Prof. Mauro F. Guillén from the University of Pennsylvania.

Hmmmm....the article needed to highlight the actual findings: a consitutional monarchy *may* have economic benefits. However, even then, the countries the article highlighted have stable governments, where their monarchy is almost symbolic. The governing are done by the government of the day, not the Monarch.

 

[Kitty1224]

IN your dreams it is doing very well. It all depends on a person's view of their government how old/young they are, if they have worked or volunteered to work for a party in their government come election time or not, how the elected officials in your area work for the people, and many other factors as to where our government is doing well. Being someone of an much older generation I have seen how much this country as changed. A good book to read on this subject is The Fall of the Roman Empire for it clearly IMHO reminds me of my country, so in time we will see what happens here.

Gads I can not believe some of the things that go on in this country, it just is a nightmare at times...........so we need change here now!

A lot of countries have gone through troubles times and America is going through it too. But to think America would be better off having a monarchy is laughable haha.

 

[Kitty1224]

Hear, hear. Most republics in Europe that function fairly well, such as Germany, Finland and Iceland, have a ceremonial president that has little to do with the daily running of the country, as is the case in constitutional monarchies. There is very little need to replace a hereditary sovereign, who is neutral politically and trained at their job from early years, with someone who must be elected and can never achieve neutrality like a sovereign, just for the sake of doing so. Executive republics, like the U.S and Russia, can never function as well as a parliamentary republic, because too much power is gathered in the hands of one person, and power corrupts, always, so you always end up with a flawed presidency in one way or another.

I totally agree with your comment LR for all the years of reading history and learning here about the different governments and how they operate that a constitutional monarchy is the best way to go. In viewing first hand what my country goes through for many many decades now, that the *Executive Republic* has forgotten about the very people that put them in power. I used to be big in volunteering for a party and then learned and saw what goes on...not anymore! Became very disillusioned quickly and left. It is not just our president and by that I mean *All Presidents* not just the sitting one for it is our entire *Congress* what makes and breaks this country for they are the ones that really yield the power in our government. A group of men and women that do not work together and bicker and fight over every little article that is on the table.

I personally think the Spanish reign of King Felipe is doing a remarkable job in keeping in touch with the people and working on their behalf.

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

In the top of most developed, most prosperous, most egalitarian, most tolerant and most happy countries we always see the usual suspects: Danmark, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden , Luxembourg, etc. Guess what these countries are? Would it be coincidence?

The Catalan crisis had actually made King Felipe's position much stronger. The new King could left his mark and he did it in an impressive way. Very much El Rey indeed. No any worries for the monarchy.