The Value Of Monarchy

[Iain]

The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

 

[ElisaR]

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I agree. And they are also a simbol of unity and continuity.

 

[Mascha]

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I absolutely agree with you..
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?

 

[Idriel]

Thank you for your answers, great variety of ideas!

Toledo, I think you misinterpereted my thread. As you can see from the answers posted and from various practical examples, there are several way of beeing a monarch (Monaco's ruler has a completely different role than Spain's monarch for example). This thread is about how a monarchy should be ruled, and what monarch is the closest to a perfect ruler.
Of course, I opened the way to some discussions about the principle of monarchy itself as I thought it would enrich the conversation. I think I was right (see post #9).
If we are all adults, there is no reason for a war to begin .

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?

 

[Sean.~]

I absolutely agree with you..
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?

Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. ) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.

 

[Idriel]

I´m against monachy, so for me they aren´t relevant, i mean they don´t lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).

That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.

 

[Sean.~]

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Finally, the current occupant of the oval office is only one example. One can not judge all presidents of all countries by his record. There have been, and continue to be, numerous presidents and prime ministers who have united their countries, just as there have been (and continue to be) monarchs who bring havoc to their countries.

 

[Idriel]

I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?

 

[Australian]

I absolutely agree with you..
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?

I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know) but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

 

[ElisaR]

That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.

And they also marry commoners.

 

[Sean.~]

Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?

Completely? No -- at least not at first, however, they will be mitigated (providing that the monarchies in question are replaced by a democratic system). And, for the record, I'm not just referring financially equality, but things like nepotism, class inequality, inequality based on ethnicity,gender inequality, etc.

 

[Sean.~]

I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know) but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

My point exactly.

 

[Idriel]

Completely? No -- at least not at first, however, they will be mitigated (providing that the monarchies in question are replaced by a democratic system). And, for the record, I'm not just referring financially equality, but things like nepotism, class inequality, inequality based on ethnicity,gender inequality, etc.

But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.

 

[Alexandria]

Exactly I agree with you.This is such a useless post.It is so tired and old.Republicans like republics.And Monarchists like Monarchies PERIOD Let's just leave it to that.This kind of post has caused alot of ruckus in other boards it was shocking.Please give it a rest.

As expressed very well by my fellow TRF Team Member Lena in post #8, I think that this is an interesting discussion, and so long as members can behave civily and respectfully (which has been the case so far), then it should continue to exist as a thread here.

While it seems that others have followed a similar line of discussion at another royal discussion forum, please note that not all of us are members of this other forum, or have the time to read forums other than this one (as I do not). So for me, all this is a new and interesting discussion.

If you participated or were witness to the same discussion at another forum, and do not care for a re-hashing of the same discussion here, then please just disregard this thread but please don't tell others that it's a waste of time. For someone like me for whom it is all a fresh question, it is not a waste of my time.

Also, while members of this forum are likely members of other forums, too, as all the royal discussion forums are run differently with different rules and expectations, there is no reason to think that the same (apparent) nasty end of a similar discussion at the other forum will take place here.

Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator

 

[Mascha]

Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. ) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.

I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know) but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

You're both right, I didn't look at it that way SORRY!!

 

[Humera]

But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.

Iran did not become a tyranny because the Shah left. The revolution itself had a lot to do with how much of a tyrant the Shah was himself. And because he was installed by the US, not chosen by his people.

 

[Sean.~]

But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.

I think you are misunderstanding my post (s). Democracy and tyrnany both have to do with strucures of governance and regimes (the extent may vary). My point was that, although *some* countries with monarchies are egalitarian democracies, not all are -- particularly where the monarchy/monarch is vested with a lot of power (this is true for other kinds of authoritarian regimes as well, of course). Thus we should be cognizant of that instead of portraying all monarchies as beacons of egalitarianism.

Moreover, many of the countries that were previouly cited as egalitarian, democratic monarchies would remain egalitarian and democratic even if the monarchies in those countries were abolished because of the social ethos and dominant political cultures of those countries -- both of which have been developed over a long period of time. For instance, it has hard to see Sweden (where the monarch has little political power to begin with) becoming a tyranny if the monarchy were abolished. These countries are egalitarian democracies because that's what the people want.

Spain did become a democracy after the demise of the Franco regime, yes. That democracy has only recently been consolidated. But democracy isn't solely attributable to Juan Carlos. There had to be want and will from the populace as well to sustain the changes. Moreover, there were many abuses under the monarchy prior to Franco. One must be cognizant of that as well.

With respect to the Shah, well, as far as history is concerned, he was a tyrant. If you are familiar with Iranian/Middle Eastern history, you will know that Iran was a fledgling democracy under Mossadq in the 1950s before the autocratic regime of the Shah was installed by the West. Thus a fledgling, grass roots democracy was replaced with an autocracy, which in turn was replaced by a theocracy because of the abuses of the former.

 

[Sean.~]

You're both right, I didn't look at it that way SORRY!!

No reason to be sorry! We're all here to share our views & discuss.

 

[Idriel]

Iran did not become a tyranny because the Shah left. The revolution itself had a lot to do with how much of a tyrant the Shah was himself. And because he was installed by the US, not chosen by his people.

Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...

 

[Idriel]

thankx for answers Sean

 

[Elspeth]

I don't know if it's a coincidence, but usually over half the countries at the top of the United Nations list of countries with the highest quality of life are constitutional monarchies.

I think a constitutional monarchy, as long as the monarch is scrupulously fair about his/her approach to politics, has the great advantage of keeping party politicians out of the position of head of state. It can be very tempting for a party politician to use the position of president to try and merge the good of the party with the good of the country and to suggest that people who don't support his party aren't patriots. It's especially the case in times of war or other national crisis. This has been going on for some years in the United States, and IMO it's unhealthy, not to say at times downright frightening.

If Tony Blair had reacted to the 9/11 attacks with the suggestion that he embodied the nation and that criticising the policies of the Labour party was tantamount to treason, he'd have been a national laughing stock - in much the same way that Margaret Thatcher became a laughing stock with her delusions of grandeur about being a national institution and the "we are a grandmother" announcement. The presence of a monarch who isn't an elected or appointed party politician does serve to remind people that politicians are not statesmen, they're representatives of their parties.

As far as the notion expressed earlier that the absence of a monarch has allowed the USA to avoid having an arrogant and elitist leader, I will simply confess to being utterly gobsmacked.

 

[Sean.~]

Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...

Yeah, there are a few threads. I would do a search using the words Shah, Mossadq, and all the Shah's Men. The latter is the title of an excellent scholarly book that was published a couple of years ago. If you are interested in the topic I would highly suggest it.

Sean

 

[Humera]

Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...

I understand the reason behind your point of view, and I have no doubt that the Shah's family members have a very different opinion of him, isnt that to be expected? But I wouldnt rely on them for the facts or for impartiality. Its all well and good that the former empress Farah goes around the world talking of democracy. But she doesnt talk about how autocratic her own husband's regime was. Infact Iran today would be freer and more open society had the Shah not be installed in the first place and had democracy been allowed to flourish.

 

[Sean.~]

I don't know if it's a coincidence, but usually over half the countries at the top of the United Nations list of countries with the highest quality of life are constitutional monarchies.

I think a constitutional monarchy, as long as the monarch is scrupulously fair about his/her approach to politics, has the great advantage of keeping party politicians out of the position of head of state. It can be very tempting for a party politician to use the position of president to try and merge the good of the party with the good of the country and to suggest that people who don't support his party aren't patriots. It's especially the case in times of war or other national crisis. This has been going on for some years in the United States, and IMO it's unhealthy, not to say at times downright frightening.

If Tony Blair had reacted to the 9/11 attacks with the suggestion that he embodied the nation and that criticising the policies of the Labour party was tantamount to treason, he'd have been a national laughing stock - in much the same way that Margaret Thatcher became a laughing stock with her delusions of grandeur about being a national institution and the "we are a grandmother" announcement. The presence of a monarch who isn't an elected or appointed party politician does serve to remind people that politicians are not statesmen, they're representatives of their parties.

As far as the notion expressed earlier that the absence of a monarch has allowed the USA to avoid having an arrogant and elitist leader, I will simply confess to being utterly gobsmacked.

I must have missed that one.

A monarchy can be a good thing as long as there are checks and balances, and providing that's what the people want. It is when there aren't checks and balances that problems start to arise (as with any system). With respect to the UN quality of life list, rather than their status as constitutional monarchies, one must (also) take other factors into consideration such as that these are rich, industrialized Western European countries whose development wasn't stymied by colonialism, occupation, and suzernaity. Moreover, they set the terms of trade and dominate international instiutions, hold patents, and have been in exisitice as states far longer than much of the non-Western (a few decades) and East

 

[Athena]

I recall recently this questioncaused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni

Oh dear, please don't mention those people, that place, or their members in this pleasent forum.


*Back on topic, I think having a monarchy is a great thing for a country that still has one. It's a tradition that brings pride and untiy to that nation and perhaps for some it may have a nationalistic pride as well.

It also brings in a lot of tourist money such as Britain; so why get rid of a good thing?

 

[jacqueline28]

Oh dear, please don't mention those people, that place, or their members in this pleasent forum.


*Back on topic, I think having a monarchy is a great thing for a country that still has one. It's a tradition that brings pride and untiy to that nation and perhaps for some it may have a nationalistic pride as well.

It also brings in a lot of tourist money such as Britain; so why get rid of a good thing?

I like what you wrote,nicely said about the monarchy part.

 

[Idriel]

I think a constitutional monarchy, as long as the monarch is scrupulously fair about his/her approach to politics, has the great advantage of keeping party politicians out of the position of head of state.

I totally agree. I see the political neutrality of European monarchs (Monaco and Liechtensein taken aside) as their best advantage. I think it's good for people to have State figures regularly keeping touch with them (official engagements) for reasons others than the next election. That neutrality create an healthy link between the Power (or its symbol) and the people. For that reason, the monarch I admire most is Juan Carlos of Spain who made a strong political statement at the beginning of his reign but then had the courage to let place to elected leaders and since then has been a neutral and charismatic figure.

 

[jacqueline28]

I totally agree. I see the political neutrality of European monarchs (Monaco and Liechtensein taken aside) as their best advantage. I think it's good for people to have State figures regularly keeping touch with them (official engagements) for reasons others than the next election. That neutrality create an healthy link between the Power (or its symbol) and the people. For that reason, the monarch I admire most is Juan Carlos of Spain who made a strong political statement at the beginning of his reign but then had the courage to let place to elected leaders and since then has been a neutral and charismatic figure.

Totally agree, love what you wrote too.

 

[Toledo]

Thank you for your answers, great variety of ideas!

Toledo, I think you misinterpereted my thread. As you can see from the answers posted and from various practical examples, there are several way of beeing a monarch (Monaco's ruler has a completely different role than Spain's monarch for example). This thread is about how a monarchy should be ruled, and what monarch is the closest to a perfect ruler.
Of course, I opened the way to some discussions about the principle of monarchy itself as I thought it would enrich the conversation. I think I was right (see post #9).
If we are all adults, there is no reason for a war to begin .

Thanks for the explanation.
I have to admit that when I read the topic's title I jumped because of the negativity I read in that other Forum, mainly, people involving current politics and the always present undercover trolls nagging around the more serious members. When I saw the headline here I thought, oh no! not here!

My five cents of opinion, Monarchy and elected officials are not the same thing, never were and never will be. A Monarch represents tradition, the sense of common history embodied in one family that represents all the families in one country. Let me explain, you know when there is a pageant and a lady is selected for the Miss Universe or Miss World competition? Well, she is the pride of her nation, she is the face of her country, at least for one year. A Monarch, at a greater time scale than spans centuries, is just that: the embodiment of a country's common history. The should be always above politics because when they cross that line, like in the current crisis in Swaziland, the whole system collapses like a house of cards.

 

[Idriel]

Thanks for the explanation.
I have to admit that when I read the topic's title I jumped because of the negativity I read in that other Forum, mainly, people involving current politics and the always present undercover trolls nagging around the more serious members.

You not not hold them in your heart, do you?

A Monarch represents tradition, the sense of common history embodied in one family that represents all the families in one country.

Do you think that because of this symbolic role, monarch should not be allowed failures (like divorces, affairs and other scandals) or do you think that they must be allowed to live the ups and downs of their lives just like other human beings?

BTW, thankx for participating and welcome on this peaceful tread