Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[COUNTESS]

I don't think it is always the exact cost, but the lives in which the monachy lives, always. Elected officials, come and go. Costs rise and fall. Elected (high officials, presidents, ect) work. They do not cut ribbons and wave. Every American Preisdent that has left office looked years older than when he entered, not just because time passed. The weight of the problems are on their shoulders. And in countries with monarchies, they still have elections and pay Prime Minsters, Presidents and real working officials. It is not just a monarch and their families. I, think, if you started to add the real costs in, for all the people, besides the monarchs, such as the prime minsters, presidents and other real functioning officials, they are not such a bargain.

 

[nwinther]

I don't think it is always the exact cost, but the lives in which the monachy lives, always. Elected officials, come and go. Costs rise and fall. Elected (high officials, presidents, ect) work. They do not cut ribbons and wave. Every American Preisdent that has left office looked years older than when he entered, not just because time passed. The weight of the problems are on their shoulders. And in countries with monarchies, they still have elections and pay Prime Minsters, Presidents and real working officials. It is not just a monarch and their families. I, think, if you started to add the real costs in, for all the people, besides the monarchs, such as the prime minsters, presidents and other real functioning officials, they are not such a bargain.

Eh? Monarchs only wave and cut ribbons? Presidents "work real hard"?

• First of all, monarchs (most often) do other things than cut ribbons. In Denmark they are involved in governance - although formally - but still.
• Secondly, plenty of presidents are ribbon-cutters etc. Look at Germany, Italy etc. etc.
• Thirdly, USA (and a few other countries) are special cases, where the president is not only HoS, but also HoG. And US plays a very big role diplomatically etc. compared to - say - Belgium or Denmark. This is US own choice to do things that way.
• Fourthly, presidents, like the US president, has an agenda and usually want to make a lot of big reforms - if for nothing else, then to leave a mark on history. Obama tried to let the legislators do some of the hard work, but was forced into to battle and came out quite battered. That'd leave a mark on anybody.
• Fifthly, the US population look at the presidential position as something close to omnipotent and responsible for almost anything (I read somewhere, that the weather in China is a political matter there - bad weather is blamed on the politicians in China). Anything goes amiss - like the hurricane Katrina - the president is to blame. That's not a constitutional or politological issue, but a cultural one.
• Sixthly, if you want to add all the additional costs of parliament, government etc. etc. to the monarchies, you have to add it to the republic as well. Thus, difference in aggregated cost would remain the same, whether you count non-HoS expenses or not.

 

[thomaspaine]

A case against monarchy by thomas paine

Hi
I am not posting this to offend anyone but if you may want to know that reasons for a republic and not a monarchy please read the worlds first bestseller book titled"a common sense" by Thomas Paine.

In the 21st century it is atavistic to have a unelected person governing a sovereign state.The recent middle east crises where there have been uprising against monarchies, prove that we need a govt of the people,for the people and by the people.
Common Sense by Thomas Paine


It is said that the biggest advantage of having a monarchy is stability;fair enough but the king\queen is answerable to to one and cannot be impeached.An alternative is to have a president elected by the people or appointed by the parliament.The president will be a nominal\ceremonial head unlike the monarchy which says it is ceremonial but has vast undemocratic powers.

The monarchy has done undemocratic actions like allowing the prorogation of the Canadian parliament even though the govt lost majority,removing a elected prime minister of Australia in 1975 and in UK
Reserve power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you are replying plz state that have you read common sense by thomas paine.

A quote from common sense
"Let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die. This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from theelectors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.



Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right. I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated. Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine. I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

First.The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
Secondly.The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.
Thirdly.The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England. The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.



To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions. To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.

First.That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly.That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown. But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity! There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.

The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless. Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question,

 

[thomaspaine]

viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist. But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the


greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time. That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key. The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by king, lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle?not more just. Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey. An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I gave up reading when a basic fact was wrong.

The Australian government was dismissed in 1975 not 1974.

I am now a republican but in 1999 when Australia voted to retain the monarchy that referendum was defeated.

I am not opposed to monarchies as such (and if there was a way for Australia to be a monarchy but have the monarch living here e.g. have Beatrice as Queen of Australia living here, raising the children here etc - I would vote for it) but I am opposed to having a foreigner in that position. A foreigner who lives overseas and whose descendents actively support another country against Australia.

 

[thomaspaine]

Just for mistyping you are not going to read it?,anyways that is what democracy is:
Democracy is mob rule where 51% can take away the rights of 49%-thomas jefferson.
(aka lisbon treaty by ireland which was forced to them and where Aussies rejected to become a republic).

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting whats for dinner-ben franklin.

The word democracy does not exist in the US constitution nor its 50 state constitution.

Republic is generally thought of a head of state but the definition is rule of law as opposed to democracy as rule of the majority.

here a video on it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

Anyways what i don't like about the Australian constitution ,is that all amendments are referred to a peblicite.

In 1988 the Aussies rejected a bill of rights.
In 1999 the Aussies rejected to become a republic.

Australia is the only soo called western democracy which does not have a bill of rights.All rights in aus are privileges.


I hope and pray and Australia,Canada,New zealand and finally UK become a republic and UK has a written constitution as constitution are there to restrict the powers of the govt.

Under the current UK constitution no one can say for sure where does the power lie.Just because the queen doesn't exercise her powers,it does not mean that she is a ceremonial head.

I hope by 2012 UK becomes a constitutional republic as well all commonwealth countries.

A quote from common sense
"In monarchy the King is the law whereas in a republic the Law is the King"

 

[Muhler]

Eeh, what is your point? Apart from promoting your book.

You are against monarchy. Or at least the British monarchy, because that's the one you seem to be focusing on.

Your text contains several contradictions.

You are dismissing the three basic pillars of government. - Which in most modern monarchies does not even involve the monarch, except on a formal basis.

You are dismissing democracy, when challenged, as mob rule of the majority. While at the same time stating that republic is rule by law.
Eeh, these laws were introduced and are being accepted either because a majority voted in favour or because someone with enough political muscle enforced it.
May I remind you that the first republics were hardly democratic, let alone allowed everyone to take part in decisions.
May I also remind you that most monarchies in a historical context where very careful to rule within the law, as the law provided the very basis for their power. - Even those who were genuinely tyrannical kept an eye on the letter of the law.

You are taking things out of their historical context and forgetting that things and forms of government change continually and will also keep evolving in the future.

Modern monarchies in democratic countries exist because that's the will of the people. Ergo monarchies in such countries are democratic.
And surely ensuring the will of the people is the main purpose of a republic?

 

[thomaspaine]

First the definition of a constitutional republic means that even if 51% of the people force the govt to ban smoking,it will be declared unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights.

Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.
Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

Your assumption of stating the democracy=law=republic is a contradiction
Secondly UK monarchy is not democratic at all or any other monarchy.The house of commons is only answerable to the people.The Queen can disregard any laws she wants by not signing or if she doesn't like the ruling party she can remove them.


Your point stating that monarchies are not tyrants is another contradiction.Over time they have not openly disregarded the will of the people and now do it covertly via governor generals and other diplomatic means.

How many of you know that the Queen was responsible of removal of a duly elected PM kevin Rudd?
I urge you to read common sense and think that Does the British people truly want a unelected,unaccountable(tyrant like) system of govt where the royal family is not British.They are German aka house of Hanover.
King George III was the first king to speak in English,they just dont speak in German.

I find it ironic and laughable.

 

[Jacknch]

No single form of government or head of state works perfectly or is the best one to choose. Some work well in some countries and some do not. Some I object to outright and some I think are very good. I think the main issue is whether the constitution of a country is sound enough to protect people from their government or head of state taking advantage of the situation. Where you have dictators such as in Libya, Zimbabwe, Burma or formerly in Iraq, it is quite obvious that the people of those countries are generally repressed and live in fear. They either democratically voted for someone who it turns out has wielded too much power and will do anything to their people to stay in power, or the form of government has been forced upon those people by the military (wheras the military is supposed to protect the people not rule over them). Some monarchies are just as bad because whilst their people live close to poverty, their monarch lives a life of luxury etc.
Some forms of presidency seem undemocratic to me because they are political. How can the French or US president be in such a position where upon election times they tell their own people that they should vote for them based on their political thoughts. That's no better than having an unelected head of state. Voting for a president should be a popular vote not a political one. Some systems are so deliberately complicated that a president (or in the case of a British prime minister) who is not popular will get to power because of the system and not because he or she gained the most votes.
People who seek power and high office are not always (and rarely in my opinion) the most suitable people to be in that position. Frankly, the same could also be said of unelected monarchs.
If Britain became a republic, what qualifications and experience will my presidential candidate have that would allow him or her the right to place themselves in a position where they could be voted for? Where am I left, if my preferred candidate doesn’t get voted for? I have enough trouble choosing a decent prime minister out of the frankly ghastly choices I have had over the years. Even choosing a government once every four or five years only to find the other party got in or the one I voted for turns out to be useless often leaves me feeling that my democratic rights are not as sound as I thought!
The only answer I can give is that the will of the people MUST ALWAYS be protected and what constitues a majority must always be of a higher percentage that in most countries it currently is. ALL heads of state, people in power, politicians, military commanders, royalty, members of parliament etc etc should carry out their duties with humility and respect for the their people.

 

[thomaspaine]

Yes and the countries that you have mentioned are either presidential system(aka one man tyranny) or semi presidential system.
The best example that Canada and Australia Can apply is the India model.India was a British colony and a was a member of the commonwealth realm from 1947-1950.It is still a member of commonwealth of nations.

See the beauty of parliamentary system is that the govt is not only answerable to the people but to the opposition.One no confidence vote is enough to shake the foundations,The real leg of the stool is the ceremonial head aka the president.

Since UK is a unitary state it can apply the model where the president is chosen via bipartisan support.I repeat that the president is the nominal head and really has no powers other than rejecting the bill once and choosing which party will form the govt(generally given to the single largest party)

Take a look at this article
President of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[David V]

All we get is a lack of calm and rational discussion. Anyone trumpeting American democracy should read America's history and look at its current realities. A republic does not make a nation more democratic or egalitarian, or indeed safe from tyranny.

 

[thomaspaine]

I am not advocating the american system.Virtually all countries using the american model have had tyranny at some point of time.What i am advocating is a non hereditary person replacing the monarch.

The reason i have chosen the Indian model for Canada and Australia is to have federalism where states can have a voice.

This leads to checks and balances.The upper house of India is known as Rajya sabha or house of the states where states have a check on the elected lok sabha aka the house of the people.Since states are also entities and individuals they are representated.


The fear of removing the monarch with an untested system will lead to chaos is just fear.India is not in tyranny or chaos.The Indian model has worked well.

Ireland model has also worked well where the president is directly elected.

 

[Muhler]

Okay, you are only talking about the British system then? - Initially it was against monarchies in general.

First the definition of a constitutional republic means that even if 51% of the people force the govt to ban smoking,it will be declared unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights.

In the US system, yes. There are other systems in other countries, including my own, safeguarding the constitutional rights of the people. - Also very much so in monarchies, as is the case in my own country.

Your assumption of stating the democracy=law=republic is a contradiction
Secondly UK monarchy is not democratic at all or any other monarchy.

Or any other monarchy.
I see, well, I'll leave it to members with more knowledge about the British form of government to deal with the specifics you mentioned.
But to state that all other monarchies are not democracies, shows that you haven't checked your facts.
It's looks to me like you are declaring that all other forms of government, which you define as non-republic are non-democratic. - Oookay!

Your point stating that monarchies are not tyrants is another contradiction.Over time they have not openly disregarded the will of the people and now do it covertly via governor generals and other diplomatic means.

Is it now? I thought from a historical sense, that a ruler was declared a tyrant if he/she openly ruled regardless of the law, or was a little "too creative" about "interpreting" the law to his/her benefit. - Which again is the very reason why monarchs were careful about sticking as much as possible to the letter of the law. Especially as being declared a "tyrant" traditionally freed your subjects from allegiance.

I suggest you don't throw words like "tyrant" about, without really knowing what the word actually means in the minds of the people. They are the ones who matters, right?

According to your definition, any head of state could be declared a tyrant. Come on.

Perhaps you would point out a current monarch, who is head of state in a modern democracy, and who is also a tyrant?

How many of you know that the Queen was responsible of removal of a duly elected PM kevin Rudd?
I urge you to read common sense and think that Does the British people truly want a unelected,unaccountable(tyrant like) system of govt where the royal family is not British.They are German aka house of Hanover.
King George III was the first king to speak in English,they just dont speak in German.

I find it ironic and laughable.

You are again taking things out of a historical context. The argument you are using has not been valid since the latter half of the 1700's.
If the British people accept and want their monarchy, what does it matter that a number of their kings were from a German family line (and as such spoke German quite a lot) more than 250 years ago?
Kings before and after the Hannovarian kings certainly spoke Excellent English (and French, and Dutch, and German, and Norse) and they felt English.
The concept of modern nationalism and national states did not become common until after the French Revolution and really only after the revolutions of the 1840's.
Before then allegience to a specific ruler usually took precedence before your national identity.

 

[COUNTESS]

It is people who make a successful government, not a government making successful people. The government here is the people. They make mistakes, but somehow over the a span of time, they figure a way to correct it. You are confusing American sytle government in what countries that brought tyrants? Isn't it that the tyrants were just held in place for efficacies sake. There was no democracy, no republic.

 

[Lilla]

You are again taking things out of a historical context. The argument you are using has not been valid since the latter half of the 1700's.

Yes Muhler. Things are taken out of a historical context.

Thomas Paine was an US author, pamphleteer, and revolutionary.
Paine emigrated from Britain to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were a powerful, widely read pamphlet "Common Sense" 1776, advocating colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Bringing his writings into the context of the constitutional monarcies of 2011 is misplaced and doesn't achive anything.

 

[sophie25]

Over the years Willaim and Harry have always worn England colours during any rugby international games they have attended. IMO another example of how they just don't care about their position in life.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Secondly UK monarchy is not democratic at all or any other monarchy.

Could you expand on this for me?

How many of you know that the Queen was responsible of removal of a duly elected PM kevin Rudd?
I urge you to read common sense and think that Does the British people truly want a unelected,unaccountable(tyrant like) system of govt where the royal family is not British.They are German aka house of Hanover.
King George III was the first king to speak in English,they just dont speak in German.

1; Interesting, how do you know that Queen removed Kevin Rudd from office?
2; The British people seemingly have no problem with our monarchy, so why should you care?
Your comment is racist IMO.

Thomas Paine was an US author, pamphleteer, and revolutionary.
Paine emigrated from Britain to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were a powerful, widely read pamphlet "Common Sense" 1776, advocating colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Bringing his writings into the context of the constitutional monarcies of 2011 is misplaced and doesn't achive anything.

Thank you for the background info Lilla.

 

[rob2008]

The monarch is representative symbol of the subjective right of the nation (Hegel). Paine ignores the role of the monarch as tribal fellow/ colleague.

 

[Jacknch]

With regard to the issue of the royal family being German, it is worth noting that the so-called "indiginous" people of the United Kingdom are derived from Brythons, Celts, Scots, Picts, Welsh, Cornish, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and goodness knows what other ancient tribes. We would therefore be hard pressed to find a genetically "acceptable" monarch or indeed an electable British president with a fully representative genetic background.

With regard to monarchies not being democratic, in what sense is an elected head of state democratic? Exactly what defines democracy?

 

[Prince Charming]

Anyways what i don't like about the Australian constitution ,is that all amendments are referred to a peblicite.

So you don't like the Australian constitution because it allows the people to have a democratic vote on any changes to it? That seems like an odd statement from someone who is saying a republic is more 'democratic'??

Oh, and the Queen had nothing to do with Rudd's "removal", that was all his own Party's doing.

Here's an interesting fact for you - the Queen herself has no power whatsoever in an Australian context. She has to do what her Ministers ask/tell her to do.

 

[COUNTESS]

Thomas Paine was a very smart fellow for his time. He didn't live in the 20th, least 21st century. Constitutional monarchies are fine. The monarch has little or no power, they are a stage prop, which is what they are worth. Wave, cut ribbons, advise. Elected heads of "democracies" are voted out. Monarchs stay for most of their lives, good or bad. They are the window dressing of the countries life. Some are wonderful, some medicore, some bad.

 

[Muhler]

Yes Muhler. Things are taken out of a historical context.

Thomas Paine was an US author, pamphleteer, and revolutionary.
Paine emigrated from Britain to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were a powerful, widely read pamphlet "Common Sense" 1776, advocating colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Bringing his writings into the context of the constitutional monarcies of 2011 is misplaced and doesn't achive anything.

Thank you, Lilla

Then this is political material from the 1770's?

Why does the starter of this thread believe it's relevant today?

 

[Lilla]

Thank you, Lilla

Then this is political material from the 1770's?

Why does the starter of this thread believe it's relevant today?

You are right Muhler. This is political material from the 1770's. As for why the starter of this thread belive it is relevant today - I don't know. IMO the relevans is lacking. It can be comparied to judging the eligibility of the Danish monarcy of today on the actions of King Valdemar Atterdag in the 1350's. Quit absurd

Different times - different circumstances.

 

[Keystone]

The idea of an unelected office-holder without term limits does not necessarily mean that a particular form of government is undemocratic. The US constitution does enshrine the notion of very powerful unelected office-holders without term limits… Supreme Court Justices.

As an American, I appreciate our republican demoracy and would have it no other way. However, I do look fondly at those nations that do retain their constitutional monarchies, and it has become an interest for me. And not the gossipy part of what makes modern ‘royal watching’, you know… who’s marrying who and what the princess is wearing at this ball. But I am interested in how modern hereditary heads-of-state can be the 'embodiment and personification' for a whole people… especially in the modern, liberal, multi-cultural civic sense. For this reason, I am very much interested in the role the institution of monarchy plays in countries like England, Spain, and the Netherlands, each of which is comprised of many ethnicities and nationalities.

I think more then anything, it is important to have a state that observes the rule of law, democratic principles which not only enshrines the idea of government by the consent of the people, but encourages its practice with the protection of minority rights. So, within this broad sentiment, I think you can have both republican and (constitutional) monarchy government. For me, the illegitimate governments are those that do not enshrine the principle of government by the consent of the people along with protection of minority rights. And those illegitimate governments can be both autocratic monarchies (with "historic dynasties") or popular despotic republics.

I believe the Western oriented nations have more or less achieved the balance, and in truth I do not believe that the hereditary heads-of-state for Western constitutional monarchies could survive if they did not have the intrinsic support of their people. It has to be noted that in 1978 Spain had the chance to shrug off its monarchy, yet 88% of voters approved of the constitutional monarchy and since then, their monarchy has enjoyed a resurgence of public approval.

 

[Lilla]

But I am interested in how modern hereditary heads-of-state can be the 'embodiment and personification' for a whole people… especially in the modern, liberal, multi-cultural civic sense.

Great post Keystone .

Living in a monarcy as I am, I find your observation quoted above of great relevans. This is what a constitutional monarchy is all about. Identity.

Just like you as an American appreciat your republican democracy and would have it no other way, I as a Dane appreciat our democratic constitutional monarcy and would have it no other way.

 

[thomaspaine]

A message from a person known as D.M
The existence of monarchs and succession unjustly imposes class distinctions by birth. Almost all cultures are guilty of supporting and maintaining class distinctions in which people are divided into upper and lower classes, rich and poor, white collar and blue collar, educated and uneducated, haves and have-nots, royals and commoners.

Just as it is despicable for anyone to be born into slavery and treated as a slave, it is abhorrent that some people should be born into royalty and allowed to lord over others. Slavery exists today, although it is hidden from the public. On the other hand, royalty is practised in the open even in this modern, democratic time. Even worse, people still accept their lot as commoners and bow to royalty. This outmoded, undemocratic, unjustified and unjustifiable practice should be abolished immediately. Nobody should be regarded as more worthy than another by incidence of birth or marriage.
All of the world's so-called royals should be stripped of their superior status by birth. They have unjustly ruled the world for far too long. How can this modern, space-age world accommodate an outdated, pejorative, egotistical system of castes? Nobody can really advance or regard themselves as free and equal if anyone actively or passively supports or condones the doctrine of royalty. Royals are no more chosen than anyone else on the planet; they have just imposed their “birthrights” and wills on their so-called subjects.

Australia will one day be free of the foreign monarchy that controls the country, and will be a free and independent nation. It remains to be seen whether Britain, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and other European countries, as well as those in the Middle East, Far East, and worldwide for that matter, can break the shackles of monarchy, which is the modern-day symbol of enslavement.
Britain is in the position of having a foreign monarchy leading its nation. The house of Windsor is just a make-over of the house of Hanover; it is predominantly a German line of royalty headed by those once known as the Hanover Electors.

The direct line is shown below:
Britain is presently under the control of the foreign royals; it is a prisoner itself. It has suffered under German domination since George I took the British throne in 1714. George I was a Hanover Elector who spoke German in the palace, as did his son, George II. George III broke ranks from his predecessors, and began speaking English in London instead of the family's native German. Over time, people forgot that the Hanover Electors were on the British throne. George IV was George III's son, who was succeeded by William IV, who was also a son of George III. Victoria succeeded her uncle, William IV. Edward VII succeeded his mother, Victoria. George V succeeded his father, Edward VII. The German lineage was hidden, as best as it could be, by George V, when he changed his surname. Edward VIII succeeded his father, George V, to the throne. Edward VIII abdicated and was succeeded by George VI, another son of George V. The currently reigning British monarch is Elizabeth II, who is the daughter of George VI. The line is unbroken and is distinctly German, regardless of whatever they have done to Anglicize their names and titles. To put it bluntly, Germans influence and control a quarter of the world using the English language.

The doctrine of the divine rights of kings should be totally eliminated. History proves that rulers are opposed to freedom, and that royal rulers are even more oppressive than elected ones. While it can be difficult to remove elected rulers, it can be almost impossible to remove royal rulers. Royalty established by succession is the worst of all. These are the tyrants in-waiting that are most likely to repress their people and are the most difficult to remove.

Some of today's monarchies rule by force, and others rule by subtle means. The passive-aggressive ones can be the most dangerous to freedom, because they can be perceived as harmless.

 

[lucien]

Great post Keystone .

You think so....

And the above is absolute bullocks!!Rambling as in the very essence of that word!

 

[David V]

Clearly irony is not lost on some people.

 

[Smart]

Thank you, Lilla

Then this is political material from the 1770's?

Why does the starter of this thread believe it's relevant today?

Why do you believe ancient institutions (like Monarchies) are relevant today?

 

[Muhler]

Here we go again...

You never responded to the arguments put against you the last time, ThomasPaine.