Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[lucien]

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

Talking about ancient institutions?We here were the only Republic amidst Monarchies for centuries,from the 16th to the 18th century.people identify with their RF,as one can not possibly expect that on a same level as one would with a George W and his croonies for example...We don't have that sort of nonsense where money an d only that buys you the position as a head of State.Dull,as in d.u.l.l.

 

[Muhler]

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

Where would you like me to start?

Perhaps because the monarchies which have survived in democratic contries are considered relevant by the populations in these countries or the form of government would have been changed.
In other words they have adapted to the changing times.

Very political arguments, and on top of that involving a country, which was or had been in a state of rebellion against, what been until then had been the head of state and ruler are interesting but hardly relevant almost 250 years later. The world has changed, so have the conditions and perceptions of the role of the various monarchies.

 

[Smart]

Talking about ancient institutions?We here were the only Republic amidst Monarchies for centuries,from the 16th to the 18th century.people identify with their RF,as one can not possibly expect that on a same level as one would with a George W and his croonies for example...We don't have that sort of nonsense where money an d only that buys you the position as a head of State.Dull,as in d.u.l.l.

I could have sworn your English was better before. Anyways, the Bushs are actually a sort of dynasty, similar to the Polk political dynasty. I can understand those who are impoverished looking up to a Noble, but I can not imagine a middle-class man or woman looking up to a Royal, who is technically less wealthy than the aforementioned John Doe / Joe Bloggs.

France was the only Republic of Europe at the start of the last century.

Where would you like me to start?

Perhaps because the monarchies which have survived in democratic contries are considered relevant by the populations in these countries or the form of government would have been changed.
In other words they have adapted to the changing times.

Very political arguments, and on top of that involving a country, which was or had been in a state of rebellion against, what been until then had been the head of state and ruler are interesting but hardly relevant almost 250 years later. The world has changed, so have the conditions and perceptions of the role of the various monarchies.

A "Democratic Monarchy" is an oxymoron.
Democracy -
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Monarchy - a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

the "argument" that the existence of Monarchies in the modern age is evidence for their populations wanting them is equivalent to the idea that people under dictatorships want and look up to their dictator. Yes, in some rare cases this is true, but in the vast majority of cases, people in monarchies or dictatorships, simply don't know they can end them.

The world has changed, indeed, and religiously-based Monarchies (as present in all of the current world's Monarchies, except Tonga) are not modern. They are based on absurd notions such as the 'Divine Right of Kings', and are fundamentally anti-human.

 

[Muhler]

A "Democratic Monarchy" is an oxymoron.
Democracy -
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Monarchy - a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

the "argument" that the existence of Monarchies in the modern age is evidence for their populations wanting them is equivalent to the idea that people under dictatorships want and look up to their dictator. Yes, in some rare cases this is true, but in the vast majority of cases, people in monarchies or dictatorships, simply don't know they can end them.

The world has changed, indeed, and religiously-based Monarchies (as present in all of the current world's Monarchies, except Tonga) are not modern. They are based on absurd notions such as the 'Divine Right of Kings', and are fundamentally anti-human.

Thank you, but you don't need to lecture me on democracy.

If the majority of a population in a country with a free press and with free elections decide to have a form of government that in some way or another involves a monarchy, that's democracy at work.
So who are you to say they are wrong?

I mean, they can abolish the monarchy if a majority wish to. That's their democratic right.

As for the last part of your argument. Well, the population in the Scandinavian countries are hardly among the most religious in the world and yet, the monarchies there are pretty popular.
As for myself, I'm a staunch atheist and yet I'm a strong supporter of the monarchy.

 

[monapublican]

thomaspaine's and Smart's arguments againt monarchies, although a bit outmoded, does raise to consideration that monarchies shouled radically change it's institution and conventional wisdom.

 

[Madame Royale]

A person who supports the abolition of all monarchies? Fanaticism much...

 

[FanofMonaco]

In the end, it is always the people who decide no matter what form of government. If they really don't like the government and are willing to fight against it, it's leaders will be gone. eg. the French and American revolutions and recently the uprisings in the Middle East.

I don't think there is a one type fits all government. I think the citizens of Monaco are very happy with their royal family. They have a much higher standard of living than Americans and their only assets are the sun, the sea and the Grimaldis. I see the same problems with politicians that I see with monarchs: corruption, incompetence and no term limits in the US Congress.

It's not the form of government as much as the quality of the leaders and a good constitution. Even Monaco has a constitution and it's very close to absolute rule.

 

[George of Wales]

A Question

I seem to be the only one who is generally opposed to monarchy, but believes that British monarchy is of crucial significance for British national identity. Brits do not have a national day - it comes every few decades with a royal wedding, watched by hundreds of millions all over the globe. When I say Spanish you think of corrida, when I say Dutch you think of marijuana and windmills, when I say Swedish you think of Vikings. When I say British, you think of Her Majesty. What is the Dutch brand? Shell. What is the Swedish brand? IKEA and H&M. In some way, British brand is the British monarchy. It is, therefore, beyond reasonable doubt that by abolishing British monarchy you abolish British national identity. And let me remind you once again Spanish, Dutch and Swedish are ethnicities, British are not. British are English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and all other people willing to accept British values of democracy, of a free and open-minded society. They all stand together under Union Jack and what unites them is Her Majesty. Queen Liz is not a person, she is an institution. I googled a lot but I failed to find anyone of the same opinion. I think that this makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Lumutqueen]

What's your point?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

If you are saying the British monarchy is intertwined with the United Kingdom's identity, I wholeheartedly agree. I am not so sure that you can make such a general observation that all people think only of the Queen when they think of Britain. For example, when I think of the UK, I picture the Houses of Parliament, the beautiful villages, the mountains of Scotland, the wacky television shows, etc., and the royal family. For me, it is not just the Queen.

 

[dilsnub]

wouldn't it be nice though to for once and only if for one moment, to be able to look at our president as the entire nation looks at the queen? for one second... wouldnt it be nice? in my opinion we should all have a monarchy... less room for thousands of crooked polititians.

 

[Renata4711]

Be careful what you wish for ...
At least you can get rid of your Head of State....

 

[dilsnub]

wouldnt need to if we had a decent one.

 

[Lumutqueen]

US President and whether you like him or not has little to do with this discussion. I love the man personally. And this country has crooked politicians, as does probably every other country which has a monarchy. You can't single yours out when it happens everywhere.

I love have the BRF, I honestly wish however that they were like the previous generations of royals and held more power.

 

[dilsnub]

I was speaking of presidents in general not just The president and my opinions of a democracy vs opinions of a monarchy. In the same respect if you took away the president of the united states would we lose our identity? i hope not. I hope that we are known for more than the president. When I think of Britain the first thing i think of is not the Queen but when I do think of Her, I admire the respect and love she is given. Saying that She is not a person but an institution could be said for every other political hero. Taking them away doesn't change the identity of a nation, it just makes way for another leader.

 

[Diarist]

Be careful what you wish for ...
At least you can get rid of your Head of State....

You've actually touched on a very interesting issue Renata; it was explained to me many years ago that the reason why the BRF is expected to behave in an exemplary way is quite simply for that reason: if an MP is badly behaved and the electors don't like him/her, then s/he can be kicked out; since a Royal cannot be kicked out so easily [unless there is a coup of some sort!!] s/he is expected to behave, so that people don't have the opportunity of saying 'XYZ is behaving so badly, now if he was an MP we could get rid of him.....' In other words, demanded exemplary behaviour from the BRF is a way of trying to stave off calls for republicanism....

 

[nascarlucy]

When I think of Britian I think of many different things, historical sites, old castles, royalty,etc. When I think of the Queen, I don't think of politics. Royalty is part of British identity. You can't take that away.

The American presidency is part of the American identity but it's a much younger identity which still is evolving as royalty has evolved. The United States would be a much different country without the presidency.

 

[kelly1994]

The American presidency is part of the American identity but it's a much younger identity which still is evolving as royalty has evolved. The United States would be a much different country without the presidency.

Very true. I can't possibly imagine America without a President. It's so much with who we are as a nation. Personally I like Obama. I think he is doing a good as oppossed to some people who have overdone their 15 minutes of fame. (not saying names) I think it's only normal for a President to be unpopular Americans like getting what they want when they want and and there is no way one President can do all that, so he becomes unpopular.

Be careful what you wish for ...
At least you can get rid of your Head of State....

It's not that easy. It's true every President can only have a maximum of 8 years in office but it's not easy to impeach a President. It's only happened twice in all of our 44 Presidents.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I was speaking of presidents in general not just The president and my opinions of a democracy vs opinions of a monarchy. In the same respect if you took away the president of the united states would we lose our identity? i hope not. I hope that we are known for more than the president. When I think of Britain the first thing i think of is not the Queen but when I do think of Her, I admire the respect and love she is given. Saying that She is not a person but an institution could be said for every other political hero. Taking them away doesn't change the identity of a nation, it just makes way for another leader.

The Queen isn't a political hero.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen isn't a political hero.

As she is above the political maelstrom I agree but that she has a role to play in the political process and has done so for nearly 60 years without virtually a misstep does make her a political hero - one who is able to deal with all sides of politics without showing her own preferences is a hard act to follow.

 

[Renata4711]

I've always thought that the Queen is in an interesting position. She is said to be above politics, but she has real constitutional duties, e.g. appointing a Prime Minister. Here her duties are not nominal, but practical, IMO.

 

[CSENYC]

Very true. I can't possibly imagine America without a President. It's so much with who we are as a nation. Personally I like Obama. I think he is doing a good

I'm American too and while the current system we have has worked amazingly well, I wouldn't be opposed to having a set-up like Canada and Australia have--with their own elected governments, but with Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, with a local representative (picked by the local government).

I'm a Republican (big R) and one reason I'd be fine with a Canada-type system is because of Obama. Since he's an elected official who belongs to one party, he frequently plays up partisanship- it's just part of being an elected politician). When Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, all Democrats, were the three most important elected officials, and were constantly attacking Republicans, I just felt so alienated from national government. I'd think that Democrats would have thought the same from 2001-2007, with Republicans in charge of all three branches of government.

Basically, having a nonpartisan head of state would be fine with me, and the only way to do it that I can think of is to have that be a monarch. (Just removing a party designation from someone won't work- someone who makes it high enough to become head of state by being picked for it would have partisan links).

I wouldn't want our own home-grown royal family, since basically everyone has some partisan connection. We'd need to bring back the British royal family or import another one.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I'm American too and while the current system we have has worked amazingly well, I wouldn't be opposed to having a set-up like Canada and Australia have--with their own elected governments, but with Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, with a local representative (picked by the local government).

I'm a Republican (big R) and one reason I'd be fine with a Canada-type system is because of Obama. Since he's an elected official who belongs to one party, he frequently plays up partisanship- it's just part of being an elected politician). When Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, all Democrats, were the three most important elected officials, and were constantly attacking Republicans, I just felt so alienated from national government. I'd think that Democrats would have thought the same from 2001-2007, with Republicans in charge of all three branches of government.

Basically, having a nonpartisan head of state would be fine with me, and the only way to do it that I can think of is to have that be a monarch. (Just removing a party designation from someone won't work- someone who makes it high enough to become head of state by being picked for it would have partisan links).

I wouldn't want our own home-grown royal family, since basically everyone has some partisan connection. We'd need to bring back the British royal family or import another one.

Very well put, CSENYC. I am an Australian and these are my thoughts exactly. Why alienate a significant portion of the population by having a popularity contest every few years for the highest office in the land? Yes, not everyone in a constitutional monarchy agress with the system, but at least the petty politics is life to the career politicians and the nation has a respectable, reputable figurehead at the top

 

[NotHRH]

The BRF, and other royals families, well at least their personas, are presented to the public as empathetic, sympathetic, down-to-earth, hard-working. I also realize in countries with a RF, many of their 'subjects' seem to believe the RF of their country/region is part of their culture and their heritage.
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
Emotions aside, and please do not bring emotions of sentiment into the picture, royal houses of Europe should not be at all. 'Royal blood' itself does not exist within any of us. Royal titles simply exists on paper and in the cyber world. Why should anyone have to bow/curtsy to anyone else?????? Royals are not above everyone else, sorry. These people fear to lose their 'positions,' their lavish lifestyles, etc. Why????? The practicality of a royal family does not exist. Sure, many seem very people- friendly, and do spend time working with charities/causes. If really committed to these c/c, they can still volunteer their time. I could go on and on, but I am not. The point of my post is made.
A practical and valid reason to keep wasting money on royals???

 

[Iluvbertie]

The BRF, and other royals families, well at least their personas, are presented to the public as empathetic, sympathetic, down-to-earth, hard-working. I also realize in countries with a RF, many of their 'subjects' seem to believe the RF of their country/region is part of their culture and their heritage.
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
Emotions aside, and please do not bring emotions of sentiment into the picture, royal houses of Europe should not be at all. 'Royal blood' itself does not exist within any of us. Royal titles simply exists on paper and in the cyber world. Why should anyone have to bow/curtsy to anyone else?????? Royals are not above everyone else, sorry. These people fear to lose their 'positions,' their lavish lifestyles, etc. Why????? The practicality of a royal family does not exist. Sure, many seem very people- friendly, and do spend time working with charities/causes. If really committed to these c/c, they can still volunteer their time. I could go on and on, but I am not. The point of my post is made.
A practical and valid reason to keep wasting money on royals???

In Britain only two members of the royal family are paid for by the state - the monarch and the monarch's spouse. The rest of the royal family are supported by the monarch, or from the private income of theheir to the throne, but they all work for the nation - effectively as unpaid employees of the state.

So from a money standpoint they are good value - do away with them and someone else will do the job and probably want to be paid for it.

The Queen's official duties still have to be done by someone - e.g. a President - so no saving there - as someone will have to do the job.

 

[NotHRH]

In Britain only two members of the royal family are paid for by the state - the monarch and the monarch's spouse. The rest of the royal family are supported by the monarch, or from the private income of theheir to the throne, but they all work for the nation - effectively as unpaid employees of the state.

So from a money standpoint they are good value - do away with them and someone else will do the job and probably want to be paid for it.

The Queen's official duties still have to be done by someone - e.g. a President - so no saving there - as someone will have to do the job.

As the crown does not want to be affiliated with political party, it would be more advantageous for GB to simply have a PM, if the PM gets less pay than the monarch. Why does the monarch's spouse also receive income from the state? There are millions of married folks in the world, and their spouse receives no income from the other halfs' place of employ.
I do believe the members of the BRF are basically wonderful people, but to pay any of them taxpayers' money is a waste for GB. Education, medical insurance and other social services for the citizens should never be cut by lawmakers. Ridding GB of it's monarchy, is simply a practical solution to help GB now and perpetually. Economically, it does make sense.

Ask yourself this question - why are royals in general fearful of losing royal status? Why? Of what are they so fearful? If they lose royal status so what? They would still retain all private real estate and assets. Why are they fearful of being commoners? Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As the crown does not want to be affiliated with political party, it would be more advantageous for GB to simply have a PM, if the PM gets less pay than the monarch. Why does the monarch's spouse also receive income from the state? There are millions of married folks in the world, and their spouse receives no income from the other halfs' place of employ.
I do believe the members of the BRF are basically wonderful people, but to pay any of them taxpayers' money is a waste for GB. Education, medical insurance and other social services for the citizens should never be cut by lawmakers. Ridding GB of it's monarchy, is simply a practical solution to help GB now and perpetually. Economically, it does make sense.

Ask yourself this question - why are royals in general fearful of losing royal status? Why? Of what are they so fearful? If they lose royal status so what? They would still retain all private real estate and assets. Why are they fearful of being commoners? Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.

The Queen is above politics so that she is able to give advice to both sides equally - the advantage of having someone who has been at the centre of things for as long as she has (and she has ensured that Charles is equally well informed) means that their is a wealth of knowledge at the fingertips of any PM.

Having an elected official in that role who leaves after a set number of years means that that experience is lost every so often.

Having an apolitical Head of State also means that they can handle changes between the different parties having the majority within the governing body without feeling any tension over the sides.

The reason why the spouse is paid is that that spouse has no choice but to give up any personal career aspirations simply because of who they married. Philip would surely have preferred to be a serving officer in the navy from 1951 - 1981 (when he would be been 60) or even later if possible but due to the nature of his wife's position that option wasn't open to him - any more than it is to Camilla or Kate or Sophie (as we saw when Sophie tried it and it was bad for the monarchy) - thus the spouse has to have some sort of financial recompense due to having no choice. If Philip had been able to continue his naval career he would now be on a naval pension and able to access all the benefits of that position.

Of course the payments are to cover the expenses of the job e.g. the expenses of the recent State Visits are paid from the Civil List but it isn't a salary at all. The Queen doesn't get paid a salary to do the job - she gets an allowance to cover her expenses and Philip, as her consort, also gets one.

Having lived in a country with the Queen as Head of State (and having been converted to republicanism for Australia) I also wouldn't want to live in a country with a political Head of State but love knowing that the Head of State can deal with both sides of politics without the baggage of having political affiliations (and these days the Australia GG is more that likely to be from outside the political spectrum than from within it after the Sir John Kerr and Hayden appointments).

As for why the royals are fearful of losing their royal status - I didn't know they were.

 

[muriel]

Why does the monarch's spouse also receive income from the state? There are millions of married folks in the world, and their spouse receives no income from the other halfs' place of employ.
I do believe the members of the BRF are basically wonderful people, but to pay any of them taxpayers' money is a waste for GB. Education, medical insurance and other social services for the citizens should never be cut by lawmakers. Ridding GB of it's monarchy, is simply a practical solution to help GB now and perpetually. Economically, it does make sense.

Ask yourself this question - why are royals in general fearful of losing royal status? Why? Of what are they so fearful? If they lose royal status so what? They would still retain all private real estate and assets. Why are they fearful of being commoners? Again, I do not believe any royal is malicious in nature, but they simply are an extra financial burden on their tax-paying citizens and are unnecessary.

Just to be clear, neither the Queen nor the DoE receive a "salary". The Civil List payments are designed to cover the costs of their public duties, and to cover the costs of running the office of the Head of State. Not disimilar to what the costs of the White House might be, except unlike the President of the US, our monarch is not paid a salary at all.

Economically, it does make sense.

Not really. The costs of running the office of president / Head of State and re-electing one every 4-5 years will exceed covering the costs of the Queen.

 

[Iva]

The BRF, and other royals families, well at least their personas, are presented to the public as empathetic, sympathetic, down-to-earth, hard-working. I also realize in countries with a RF, many of their 'subjects' seem to believe the RF of their country/region is part of their culture and their heritage.
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
Emotions aside, and please do not bring emotions of sentiment into the picture, royal houses of Europe should not be at all. 'Royal blood' itself does not exist within any of us. Royal titles simply exists on paper and in the cyber world. Why should anyone have to bow/curtsy to anyone else?????? Royals are not above everyone else, sorry. These people fear to lose their 'positions,' their lavish lifestyles, etc. Why????? The practicality of a royal family does not exist. Sure, many seem very people- friendly, and do spend time working with charities/causes. If really committed to these c/c, they can still volunteer their time. I could go on and on, but I am not. The point of my post is made.
A practical and valid reason to keep wasting money on royals???

Some pretty strong words, every time it just amazes me how people who are not even living in Europe are telling Europeans what should they do and what don't. There are currently 10 reigning monarchs in Europe and although in every country there are people who would prefer republic, in none of them the majority of people things so.
So, republic vs. monarchy:
1. In Europe there is not a tradition of strong president as in USA, in most countries that are republic the position of president is the same as the position of the monarch, he's ceremoniary head of state with the majority of powers in hands of the prime minister and the goverment.
2. What I see as a benefit of a monarchy is that the monarch is politically neutral. In my country president although said to be politically neutral is always linked to some political party and there are mostly negative effects linked to this. President/Monarch is there to represent the country and it's citizens at home and abroad, he's not there to represent just the sympathizers of one political party or coalition.
3. Wasting money... The Monarch recieves money to cover the expenses of representing his country, so would the president. The monarchy recieves also money to keep the castles etc., so would the republic, everyone wants to preserve the cultural heritage in top shape.

And I could go on and on. I think it's up to the citizens of the country to decide which one is the best for them. What I see as positives of monarchy is continuity and political neutrality. What I see as positives of republic is that if you don't like your president you can get rid of him after 4-5 years if there are enough people who also thing so.

 

[dbarn67]

Wow, once again as an American I thought politicking on this forum was forbidden. Yet folks come here to play politics when there are plenty of partisan boards where they can find like-minded followers. But given the topic Americans can't help but start throwing political stones. As an American and a big D Democrat I will trying to answer the question without resorting to partisanship. I love everything superficial about traditional monarchy, the gowns, the jewels and the wonderful palaces and castles and the appearance of rules that define what is proper behavior. I love looking at pictures and fantasizing about royal life and beautiful weddings etc. But that's the limit of my interest in royalty and I would be 100% against any form a monarch here in the U.S. IMO the U.S.'s greatness comes from it's very foundation; which is that any one can come from anywhere can be successful and even rise to the highest position of authority. Monarchy suggests that highest position can only be occupied by an exclusive few. The U.S. is too diverse in every way to expect citizens to view 1 family as the right "type" of people to emulate. No, I love my country and am proud the way it is and see no need to change it just because I don't like who's in power at any one time.

Saying that, I wil defend the notion that royal families are a financial liability to the European nations that support them. I think they're a bargain compared to what they bring in with regard to tourism and general interest. One estimate of the financial windfall share throughout England due to the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge is about $1 billion in revenue against whatever the cost of the entirety of the wedding. Also, I know I went to England last year with an eye on seeing some historical royal sites....and some Hary Potter sites lol.