Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[royalistbert]

As far as I know, Tony and Gordon weren't invited because they weren't Knights of The Garter whereas the two conservative PMs invited (Thatcher and Major), both are.

If Harold Wilson and James Callaghan were still alive I am sure they would of been invited too.

 

[prinz_von_buzim]

I would say that term "right" is different in different countries and period. So I wouldn't so strictly connect royals with right wing. It depends. Today, in the most of central european countries, right wing is based on nationalism (not some nazi nationalism, but national consciousness is very important while leftists don't care for it much). Historically, nationalism is the one that was destroying monarchies in the most of countries. The best example is Austria-Hungary where nationalism was strongly anti-monarchistic. So in modern meaning of "right" and "left" it is very hard to strictly say for who monarchs have bigger sympathies. Monarchism, as political view on wordl, is strongly connected with conservativism and patriotis. Right-winged parties are generally conservative, but important thing here is that for monarchism, patriotism is much more important than nationalism. State, kingdom, crown - it is the important thing, while nation isn't. Monarchs never cared much to be situated in state from where they come, and also, as dynasties were mixing with each others by wedding arrangments, the most of houses are of mixed descendance. So we can say that nobility is above nation, and that's why nationalism and monarchism hardly can go together.

 

[Esmerelda]

In the Channel 4 series the Queen, wasn't it mentioned that the Queen had pretty unfavourable views about some of Margaret Thatcher's policies? I might have remembered wrong, may have to check.

 

[Lumutqueen]

In the Channel 4 series the Queen, wasn't it mentioned that the Queen had pretty unfavourable views about some of Margaret Thatcher's policies? I might have remembered wrong, may have to check.

According to reports the pair had "issues" over policies in South Africa and the Falklands, but if you look deeper you find older reports dated at the time which say the women got on very well, some even say better than with Maggie's predecessors. All depends which side you look at. The women for me is ghastly, I used to like her until I heard her speak.

Anyway, Maggie was invited to the wedding.

 

[lucien]

Here's one of the articles about Labour PMs not being invited to the Royal wedding:

Royal wedding: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown not invited

Edited to add: Here is another:

BBC News - Tony Blair and Gordon Brown royal wedding 'snub' row

No space in Westminster Abbey, with over 1,000 guests? Whatever. "Not a state event"? Whatever.

It was Williams wedding,not any of Toni the Phoney´s palls...so,William and Catherine invited whom they know best,and like best..

 

[Lumutqueen]

so,William and Catherine invited whom they know best,and like best..

To be honest, I don't think they're best mates with Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher. When it comes to weddings and politicians you don't pick the ones you like, as you don't like any of them.

 

[cepe]

The reason John Major was invited is that he does know Prince William and Harry very well as following the death of Diana Princess of Wales in 1997, he was appointed a special guardian to the Princes with responsibility for legal and administrative matters.

 

[Meraude]

Well, you shouldn't judge peoples' opinions from pictures, but I have to post these two photos from the lunch the Swedish royal family have with the leader of the political parties:
With Jimmy Åkesson, leader of the far-right Sverigedemokraterna: Kungaparet gav lunch för partiledare Jimmie Åkesson - Sveriges Kungahus [NS4 version]
With Håkan Juholt, the former leader of the Social Democratic party: Kungaparet gav lunch för partiledare Håkan Juholt - Sveriges Kungahus [NS4 version]

 

[Esmerelda]

Well, you shouldn't judge peoples' opinions from pictures, but I have to post these two photos from the lunch the Swedish royal family have with the leader of the political parties:
With Jimmy Åkesson, leader of the far-right Sverigedemokraterna: Kungaparet gav lunch för partiledare Jimmie Åkesson - Sveriges Kungahus [NS4 version]
With Håkan Juholt, the former leader of the Social Democratic party: Kungaparet gav lunch för partiledare Håkan Juholt - Sveriges Kungahus [NS4 version]

I agree- I think a video would give a better feel of the dynamic. Maybe Mr Akesson is just not as pleasant on a personal level. I guess we'll never know.

 

[Meraude]

I agree- I think a video would give a better feel of the dynamic. Maybe Mr Akesson is just not as pleasant on a personal level. I guess we'll never know.

Or that his party thinks that there should be no immigrants or children of immigrants from countries outside of the Western Europe in Sweden, and the queen is half Brazilian.

 

[EIIR]

I think it's too simplistic to say that the royals are right wing or small 'c' conservative. Take Charles for example. His views on the environment and GM food, along with his admiration for Islam, fit much more comfortably among the left with Greenpeace etc. Yet, on urban planning and architecture he's much more conservative and traditional.

There have always been rumours that the Queen was dismayed at the enormous upheaval and riots of the Thatcher years. Some people persist that she didn't get on with Margaret Thatcher, and MT is supposed to have said to a colleague 'The problem is, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP (Social Democratic Party).' The SDP was a new party of the centre left, who for a time had some electoral success at the expense of the 2 old parties Labour and Conservative. This posed a potentially big problem for the Conservatives because, as the SDP were not as militant left wing as the Labour Party, those voters who felt they couldn't vote for Labour because of its far left policies would now vote for the SDP rather than the Conservatives.

The nature of monarchy is to protect national tradition and provide a living link with the past. These are fundamentally conservative ideals. But that doesn't mean that royals will always favour parties of the right.

 

[Meraude]

The political spectrum and the number of political parties varies from country to country and that makes it difficult to compare different political parties in different countries. For example I would guess that if comparing the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties with Swedish political parties would place both party views closer to the Swedish Conservative party and possibly somewhat further to the right.

For the Swedish royal family, I would guess that their political views are somewhere center/right, perhaps liberal, I can see the king agreeing to the politics of the Center (agrarian) party while the queen is probably more for the Christian Democratic party. For Victoria and Daniel perhaps the Liberal party, while I can't see either Carl Philip or Madeleine interested in politics at all.

 

[CSENYC]

The political spectrum and the number of political parties varies from country to country and that makes it difficult to compare different political parties in different countries. For example I would guess that if comparing the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties with Swedish political parties would place both party views closer to the Swedish Conservative party and possibly somewhat further to the right.

For the Swedish royal family, I would guess that their political views are somewhere center/right, perhaps liberal, I can see the king agreeing to the politics of the Center (agrarian) party while the queen is probably more for the Christian Democratic party. For Victoria and Daniel perhaps the Liberal party, while I can't see either Carl Philip or Madeleine interested in politics at all.

Thanks. Very interesting. Do all of those parties officially support keeping the monarchy, or have any of them officially or unofficially called for a republic?

For what it's worth, my Swedish relatives became Republicans after they moved to the United States. They were big supporters of the Swedish royal family.

 

[EIIR]

The British Conservative Party would be much closer to the US Democratic party than most people would assume. David Cameron and Barack Obama would be fairly close in terms of their values and aims; which is probably why they get along so well together personally.

No mainstream British political party advocates the end of the monarchy. Interestingly, Andrew Marr's latest book on the Queen suggests that down the years the royals have had an easier time of it under Labour governments that Conservative ones which is the opposite of what most people would expect.

 

[nascarlucy]

I would think any monarch would want to keep a more Centrist or middle of the road view rather than favoring right-wing or left-wing political parties. In recent years, extremism has invaded both sides of the political aisle and this has happened in a lot of countries. The last thing a monarch would want would be to be associated with someone or some group who had extremist views or someone who was very controversial, even if they support the monarchy.

Most monarchs aren't extremists which is a good thing. My guest is many of them tend to be conservative but not extreme in their conservatism. I would imagine like eveyone else there are some issues they feel strong about and perhaps they speak their peace about it. In a few instances, a monarch has come out strongly against something due to personal or religious beliefs but not very often.

A very trickly situation would be a tightly contested election where a political block of extremists won by a slim majority and they formed a government. Let's say the government of this country was very divided with both extremes with very little middle ground.

Let's say that the monarch of this country found certain views of both sides to be repulsive or against their personal or religious beliefs. Or others around the world felt the same. The monarch in this situation knows that showing any type of approval for this government or anyone involved in it will result in political and social upheaval in their country but they have no choice in the matter. Not a good situation but one a monarch might face someday given the political climate of today.

 

[Leah2016]

I think it is difficult to classify any given monarchy as either left or right. They generally do not express their political views publicly. However, I would assume that each individual royal has their own political views. For example, Prince Charles seems to be more socially liberal, probably an environmentalist, based on the accounts he follows on Twitter.
That being said, if a country has one party favoring a monarchy, and one party opposed to a monarchy, they will probably favor the party that supports the monarchy.

 

[nascarlucy]

While it's true that monarchs generally don't express their political views in public, most of them are probably what I would call middle of the road conservatives. They like certain traditions but also are not opposed to changes in the monarchy as long as the change isn't radical.

 

[EIIR]

I would think any monarch would want to keep a more Centrist or middle of the road view rather than favoring right-wing or left-wing political parties. In recent years, extremism has invaded both sides of the political aisle and this has happened in a lot of countries.

This is very much true of the US, but not so true in the UK. British political parties all try to occupy the centre ground of the political spectrum, and so there tends not to be a huge amount of difference between the parties' policies. I think the Queen would've been mostly comfortable with New Labour, and with the current Conservative/LibDem coalition.

Because there's no really material difference between the big parties in the UK, our politics has become much more a battle of personalities, and trying to control the 'news agenda'.

 

[Meraude]

Thanks. Very interesting. Do all of those parties officially support keeping the monarchy, or have any of them officially or unofficially called for a republic?

The four "borgerliga" (center-right) political parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Christian Democtratic and Center party favour the monarchy in their party programs, as well as the far right Sweden Democrats. The Social Democrats, the Left party and the Green party have the demand for republic in their party programs. Inofficially I would say that it's only the Left party that are all in favour of a republic, in the two other parties the some are in favour of a republic, others in favour of a monarchy, and there are those in the parties that support monarchy who favours the idea of a republic. Here's a poll made by Swedish newspaper showing the opinions of members of the Swedish parliament when it comes to monarchy or republic. About 80% of the parliament members have answered the poll: Monarkin splittrar partierna | Politik direkt

 

[PrincessSerena]

There was an interesting article this week in the New York Times about the emergence of historians studying the British Royal Family. The article stated that the BRF hasn't been extensively studied in part because historians on the political right view the monarchy as something that should of course exist (so why debate it?), while those on the left view having a monarchy as absurd (and so why debate or study it?).

If it's true that republicanism (small R, meaning anti-monarchy movements) is supported largely on the political left, to the extent that we know European monarchs' political views, do they generally favor the political right?

With Prince Charles refusing to invite a few Labour leaders to the recent royal wedding, I'd say he's perhaps a Tory, but do we know?

I consider myself a liberal and I honestly am a huge fan of royals and have no problem with a Monarchy. I think it is fine as long as it is a consitutional Monarchy and everything is fair. There has been a history of Tyranny with Monarchs but it does not mean it would not be a good idea as long as it is in moderation.

 

[MarkUK]

I would be very surprised to hear that any member of the British Royal Family, if forced to give an opinion, would not support the Conservatives. Broadly speaking people with money and social standing vote Conservative, those with less money or a lower social standing vote Labour. This is a broad generalization, examples showing the reverse is true exist of course.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think it probably depends on the policies of the government in power at the time, like it does for most people.

 

[nascarlucy]

Depending on the country, sometimes it is divided among, race,gender religion, soci-economic, political idealogy and other things. In the United States these things influence what political party one supports. I would imagine in other countries some of this also factors in.

You would probably know if a monarch was an political or religious extremist or any other type of extremist. An Extremist on the right or the left can't keep quiet. They have to tell anyone who will listen to them what they believe and they often can go on and on. If you don't agree with them or try to ignore them, they often resort to insults, name calling and make outrageous statements so that you will have their attention. They become furious or lose their temper if anyone challenges their belief system.

This wouldn't be a government that a monarchy would want to support or be forced to attempt. A MP or PM who was an extremist would make for a most unhappy time.

Sometimes it's one issue and other times it a variety of issues but it's always a one track mind. No monarch currently on any throne fits this description. Hard to hide something like this.

 

[Meraude]

There was the controversy 2008 in Luxembourg when grand duke Henri refused to sign into law the act of euthanasia the parliament had approved. The end result became that the royal signature is no longer necessary for a law to take effect. As Henri is deeply religious it's understandable that he didn't want to sign a law that went against his beliefs but that put him in opposition to the legislative powers in his country.

 

[Mariel]

I read somewhere that Duke Alois of Leichtenstein said he would leave the country if he was asked to sign an abortion permission law. I believe the law never was forward to him and did not pass. Not sure, though. the Leichtenstein family have plenty of other places they could live if necessary.

 

[Nerofly]

I think the British Royal Family have done very well to maintain strictly non-partisan.

All three of our main parties now are effectively centre-left parties made up of careerist politicians, so you might as well role a dice to guess which one they'd vote for.

I would say that in general they are generally 'small-c conservatives' than anything, certainly with attitudes to religion and family life, as well as country issues like fox hunting.

Prince Charles is the only one who's been particularly forth-coming about political issues. Some of the issues he's supported have swung from left to right, like organic food and supporting British farming. These are historically left-wing causes that are now associated with the right, with the left (at least the 'london left') moving towards GM crops and buying within the EU.

Perhaps he just proves the old adage, 'it only takes ten years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea'.

 

[espejor]

Referenda For Monarchy / Republic

Hi! I would like to know how many referendums monarchy vs. republic have been held in the History. I remember these:

-Bulgaria: With the country occupied by the Sovietic troops, a referendum was held and the monarchy abolished.

-Italy: The Italian monarchy was abolished in the 1946 referendum.

-Belgium: Was the question royale a referendum about the continuance of the Belgian dynasty or "only" about if the suitable king was Leopold III or Baudouin I?

-Greece: The 1974 referendum showed very clearly that the Greek people didn't want the Royal Family to return.

-Iran: Shortly after the Shah left Tehran, a public referendum abolished the monarchy with more of the 95% of the votes were favourable to the proclamation the Islamic Republic...

-Brazil: In the 90's, due to the request of a member of the parliament, was celebrated a referendum one century after the downfall of the Orleàns-Bragança.

-Cambodia: Was the 1993 plebiciste a referendum about the monarchy or simply a new constitution was promulgated?

-Albania: In 1997 the monarchical option won the popular plebiscite, but the governement manipulated the results. Officially, only one third of the Albanians voted for the return of king Leka.

-Australia: A plebiciste in 1999 was held and the 55% of the votes were pro-monarchy.

I don't know more examples of referendums held about monarchy vs. republic. And you?

Regards and thank you!

 

[ciarano177]

I found a blog on blogger it shows the reason why a monarchy is better than a republic so far has three posts i believe Monarchy is the way forward !

 

[ciarano177]

Safeguarding monarchies of the world

In my opinion it is our job to safeguard these monarchies from threats such as dictatorships and republicans . These republicans are annoying and their arguments are folly we must persuade the populations of these countries to return to monarchy from a republic and to stop the transition from a monarchy to anything else. With blogs like these being able to help to spread the word of the political system that works http://monarch1996.blogspot.ie/

 

[Lumutqueen]

In my opinion the population of the countries themselves should be allowed to decide what they want, monarchy or republic.