The Value Of Monarchy

[Toledo]

Your Welcome.

If it's strickly symbolic, to a point they are not allowed to have human faults, then you have something similar to the Japanese Imperial Family and their strict code of conduct controlled by the Court. And you don't want that because a tragic casualty of that system has been the unfortunate Crown Princess Masako. But if they go in the opposite direction, a libertine life of aristocrartic bed hoping and double standards masked by snobbery, then you got most of the the children of poor Queen Elizabeth II and their Royal antics. For example, I did not know until recently that Camilla's Ex husband was Princess Anne's Ex boyfriend. And, there is the even more extreme scenario: Monaco's Grimaldis.

There has to be a middle point where the Heirs to any throne had to be made aware that they are held at higher standards, and if they don't like it they can step down. But the attitude of any Royal child depends, like in everyone's life, on parenting skills. Children are not supposed to raise themselves, nor live in an isolated bubble away from the real world. The same applies to the children of elected officials, they know their public conduct reflects on their parents.
And on divorce, every case has a different reason, but if they married for love they both should make an effort to get past their obstacles since there is so much at stake. And, if they can't, at least don't leave the marriage with hatred for the other person when there are kids in common. Parents should make the best effort to conduct themselves in a way it won't affect the kids.

 

[Toledo]

On trolls, no, I don't feed them. But sometimes they are tricky to spot. As in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, they do evolve to fit into an enviroment before they turn into pests. But plain indiferrence is the best way to scare them off, Trolls get tired when they can't find someone that responds their hit-and-run games.

 

[Idriel]

Your Welcome.

If it's strickly symbolic, to a point they are not allowed to have human faults, then you have something similar to the Japanese Imperial Family and their strict code of conduct controlled by the Court. And you don't want that because a tragic casualty of that system has been the unfortunate Crown Princess Masako. But if they go in the opposite direction, a libertine life of aristocrartic bed hoping and double standards masked by snobbery, then you got most of the the children of poor Queen Elizabeth II and their Royal antics. For example, I did not know until recently that Camilla's Ex husband was Princess Anne's Ex boyfriend. And, there is the even more extreme scenario: Monaco's Grimaldis.

There has to be a middle point where the Heirs to any throne had to be made aware that they are held at higher standards, and if they don't like it they can step down. But the attitude of any Royal child depends, like in everyone's life, on parenting skills. Children are not supposed to raise themselves, nor live in an isolated bubble away from the real world. The same applies to the children of elected officials, they know their public conduct reflects on their parents.
And on divorce, every case has a different reason, but if they married for love they both should make an effort to get past their obstacles since there is so much at stake. And, if they can't, at least don't leave the marriage with hatred for the other person when there are kids in common. Parents should make the best effort to conduct themselves in a way it won't affect the kids.

I agree with most of your post. Particularly on the part about the divorce. i think for example the examplary way Alexandra and Joachim handle their divorce (no kiss and tell to the press, maximum protection of their kids) is very royal and does not cause troubles to the danish RF. As opposed to the disastrous war of the Whales who still affect BRF years after Diana's death.

 

[Von Schlesian]

I live in a Constitutional Monarchy and can without doubt say that I have faith in the system. Before being asked by those in republics, whether I've lived anywhere else, I've also lived in the Federal Republic of Germany, and in East Africa. Ofcourse, the fact that I love my Queen does much to confirm my confidence in the system, but the nature of the system, of a Monarch as Soverign/Head of State, with a three-part government (Executive, legislative and judiciary), there is a strong check and balance system in practice.

The power exercisable by the Governor-Gereral in the absence of Her Majesty, has many-a-time been underestimated, as the republican Prime-Minister Edward Gough Whitlam found out on Remembrance Day 1975! So to say that our monarchy is irrelavent because of the accepted public opinion that it is, is no argument against what is a highly stable system of government. God save the Queen.

 

[Idriel]

The power exercisable by the Governor-Gereral in the absence of Her Majesty, has many-a-time been underestimated, as the republican Prime-Minister Edward Gough Whitlam found out on Remembrance Day 1975!

May I ask you what happened?

 

[Australian]

On Remembrance Day, 1975, Australia's most dramatic political event took place. The Governor General dismissed the Government, led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

the full story can be found here:
http://www.topologymusic.com/davidson/whitlam.htm

 

[Idriel]

On Remembrance Day, 1975, Australia's most dramatic political event took place. The Governor General dismissed the Government, led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

the full story can be found here:
http://www.topologymusic.com/davidson/whitlam.htm

Thank you Australian

 

[Australian]

No worries

 

[rop81]

I´m very proud of living in a monarchy and think that the system of a constitutional monarchy such as sweden for instance works very good. It keeps us in contact with our thousand year history of monarchy and is still as I see it very democratic, where the king has no political power what so ever and is under constant contral of the parliment and people. Sweden is often put as an example of democracy and openness, even though our head of state is not elected by the people, so it doesn´t seem to affect our international image much either. But it´s important that the king has the people behind him, the day that a majority of the swedish people say it does not see any reason with the monarchy then it has to be abolished, but not as it is now when it is mostly the members of the swedish parliment that want´s to make Victoria unemployed and the royal family has a support by 70-80 % of the people.

Personally I hope that the bernadotte family will have their job for a long time to come.

 

[GrandDuchess]

I´m very proud of living in a monarchy and think that the system of a constitutional monarchy such as sweden for instance works very good. It keeps us in contact with our thousand year history of monarchy and is still as I see it very democratic, where the king has no political power what so ever and is under constant contral of the parliment and people. Sweden is often put as an example of democracy and openness, even though our head of state is not elected by the people, so it doesn´t seem to affect our international image much either. But it´s important that the king has the people behind him, the day that a majority of the swedish people say it does not see any reason with the monarchy then it has to be abolished, but not as it is now when it is mostly the members of the swedish parliment that want´s to make Victoria unemployed and the royal family has a support by 70-80 % of the people.

Personally I hope that the bernadotte family will have their job for a long time to come.

Hear hear! I as a Swede couldn't agree more with you!

For me, who has some experience of the political life in our country, one of the most important things about the monarchy is that it's un-political. Sweden is otherwise a very politicized country, almost all of the state and government institutions and supported institutions are politically run, which makes politics a powerful business no matter what your interests are. So for me, I thank god that we have a monarchy and a Head of State that stands above all this political partisanship, a force who can unite us all as one.

 

[Josefine]

any more thoughts on this subject

 

[Splodger]

An important distinction MUST be made between Historical Monarchies such as the lavish and elitist courts of Louis XIV and Modern Monarchies (which are still continuing to develop).

My view of a Monarchy intodays world is that they should:
a) provide the living symbol of their nation, unbiased by political opinions
b) encourage and develope ecanomic and humanitarian growth
c) maintain and respect traditional culture
d) ensure the above are not lost or abused by polititicans for short term politcal ends
e) they are the balance of government - by being the top job, they do not run for election, they are not interested in short term goals to maintain political power, but nature of the regiem of monarchy would prevent corupt governments or persons from assuming power (e.g. hitler).

I dont beleive there are any current monarchies who are like this yet, and i also do not advercate monarchy as a system of governemnt suitable for everyone (e.g. America geographicaly, democraphicaly and culturaly to complex... after all - who could evre be King/Queen of America?).

However for anyone who criticises Monarchies for being undemocratic, backward or a pure novelty... it is interesting to view Republics from another point of view. In the case of USA - the administration is the presidents choice not the peoples, presidents are limited in their terms of office, so once they won the second election do they care what they do, doesnt matter if they are good or bad, their days are numbered. Whilst Republics elect their head of state (could the money spent on election campaigns be spent on health care or education?) people who do not share the views of the government, even in the land of the free, have been hunted down in witch hunts such as McCarthism and segregated people based on skin colour, all within the last 50years... etc. etc. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Idriel]

Splodger
Your avatar is just great.

 

[Lisele]

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.

While monarchy may never be an option in the United States, I have always been fascinated by them. I've been following royalty since I was a child. And tell the truth, what little girl NEVER pretended she was a princess? I've lived many places outside the US and I find the monarchy appealing in the sense that people have someone to look to, to bring the nation together. We don't have have that special someone in the US. Would I like a monarchy in the US? It's a moot point isn't it? We declared our independence and threw that all away over 200 years ago so that will never happen. But we're still fascinated by them And for me, that is why I joined this forum so I can keep track of them and get more information and news. I wish I had known about this forum years ago but as they say, better late than never.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

Monarchys are good for tourism, alot of Americans are facinated by royalty.

 

[Idriel]

An important distinction MUST be made between Historical Monarchies such as the lavish and elitist courts of Louis XIV and Modern Monarchies.

Through I get your point, I need to say that as far as France is concerned, monarchy has rather been a good thing. Of course, it was disastrous in term of social justice, but if you consider commerce, industry and political and cultural predominance, it was rather successful.
People tend to see Louis XIV and other glorious French Kings as a vain brats which spent their days stuffing themselves with foie gras. But actually they were quite good heads of state (well apart for their irrepressible taste for war).

 

[Squidgy]

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 was just looking at the 2004 Human Development Report last week for work. And yes, it is interesting that the top 5 countries as ranked by the UN are all constitutional monarchies. (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/)

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherlands

 

[Splodger]

Through I get your point, I need to say that as far as France is concerned, monarchy has rather been a good thing. Of course, it was disastrous in term of social justice, but if you consider commerce, industry and political and cultural predominance, it was rather successful.
People tend to see Louis XIV and other glorious French Kings as a vain brats which spent their days stuffing themselves with foie gras. But actually they were quite good heads of state (well apart for their irrepressible taste for war).

Oh i do agree with you there - my reference was mainly in the context that such a regime would not be suitable today (at least in western europe for example). Historicaly however it was neccessery for absolutism - before cars, trains, plains and telephones and computers, fast comunication on mass wasn't possible and it made the practice of democracy impossible - not to mention that the lack of education ment people wouldnt know where to start in practicing their democratic rights or know what they were voting for.

People should refrain from judging the values of modern monarchies on historical practice - it is a practice that is not for consideration or neccessery in most cases today. Apart from this, even the great and wounderful democracies of Rome and Athens were not real democracies - only the men from elite educated noble classes had voting rights - whilst people condem monarchies for being undemocratic beacuse they dont elect the head of state... a republic does not make a country any more democratic. The USA which is often seen as a 'classic' example of a democratic republican system - segregated people by colour and did not grant women the full right to vote (practice their democratic right) until 1920 and the same rights were not extended to blacks until the 1960s! compared with universal sufferage in the Kingdoms of Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK between 1913-1921.

 

[Von Schlesian]

... a republic does not make a country any more democratic. QUOTE]

Very very true. In fact, we can look at the last century of History to see just how republics have become democratic... or not. I don't mean to be doing the very thing (looking to history to give us an example), that you're saying we shouoldn't do to form an opinion of Monarchy, I'm just using history in this case to illistrate you statement, are there aren't very many 'new' republics.

Countries such as Germany, Russia and China in particular, resulted in the enormous instability of the states. Three nations, former Empires, who's people had grown up knowing little other government than powerful, autocratic and heireditory monarchs, were suddenly thrown into a world of politicians, instability, corruption, and rule by ideology (in the case of Russia, from 1917, Germany from 1934, and China from 1949).

Though the result can't be entirely linked to the end of the monarchies which had ruled them, the factors are un deniably connected.

 

[Idriel]

Oh i do agree with you there - my reference was mainly in the context that such a regime would not be suitable today (at least in western europe for example).
...

by colour and did not grant women the full right to vote (practice their democratic right) until 1920 and the same rights were not extended to blacks until the 1960s! compared with universal sufferage in the Kingdoms of Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK between 1913-1921.

I do agree with your whole post. And I did understood my you meant in your first post. It's just that, as a French, I had undergone so much propaganda against monarchy at school that I took advantage of your post to defend French Kings a bit .

 

[Josefine]

its relevent becouse the Monarchy is many countries is part of the culture and history and they are ambasedors for their country

 

[Paula**]

its relevent becouse the Monarchy is many countries is part of the culture and history and they are ambasedors for their country

I totally agree with you

 

[bgnparisgurl]

Why royalty?

Just something I have always been curious about. What is it about royalty that has people in `awe` and `fascination` so to speak? Is it the Disney movies that as kids made us use our imagination towards maybe someone who seems almost `perfect`?

 

[lise]

its relevent becouse the Monarchy is many countries is part of the culture and history and they are ambasedors for their country

I agree with you too.

 

[norwegianne]

Just something I have always been curious about. What is it about royalty that has people in `awe` and `fascination` so to speak? Is it the Disney movies that as kids made us use our imagination towards maybe someone who seems almost `perfect`?

I don't know. It might be part of it.

I don't think the royals are flawless, and trying to portray them that way will only lead to badness. What I like about living in a monarchy is the continuity - Prime Ministers and elected politicians may come and go, thankfully, but the King or Queen stay for life, and provide historical ties to the past and the future.

 

[kwanfan]

Just something I have always been curious about. What is it about royalty that has people in `awe` and `fascination` so to speak? Is it the Disney movies that as kids made us use our imagination towards maybe someone who seems almost `perfect`?

I don't remember where I heard this quote but someone said royalty are, "ordinary people placed in extraordinary positions." It's not like they wanted to become famous or anything like that. They're were born into their positions and I think it's fascinating to see what the do with the privileges and opportunities they were born with.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

ordinary people placed in extraordinary positions.

I also heard that quote and I believe it was stated by a professional historian.

Why are people so fascinated by the monarchies? I have no idea. For a small minority of Americans, it's a fantasy life that may attract them to royals. For people living in a country with a monarchy, it's nationalism. Perhaps the monarch is national symbol to the people; a person who unites their nation symbolically; gives them an identity seperate from the rest. Traditionalism may be another aspect.

Are they really relevant in today's world? Depends who you ask. Some may adamently say yes noting that they are ambassadors to their nations. While on the other side of the debate, some may cringe and say no, that they are a waste on tax payers money.

Who knows. I find some royals interesting, others not so much. Would I want to live in a country with a monarch? No. I'm proud of where I come from and wouldn't change it for the world.

 

[Furienna]

After reading this thread, I'm first of all actually surprised, that Canada still is a part of the commonwealth, because of the many French-Canadians. Even though they're a minority, they're many enough to demand what head of state they should have. And what tie can they have to the Brittish royal family, who represents a culture, that's not theirs at all? However, the general governor might be much more canadian than what the Brittish royal family is. Also in South Africa, many people speak Afrikaans, a Dutch dialect. What tie do these people have to the Brittish royal family? Shouldn't the Dutch royal family feel closer to them? But Australia and New Zeeland are different, as I see it. Even though there are aborigins and maori, and even though immigrants have come to these countries from all over the world, these are still very brittish countries, where the culture is over all Brittish or at least anglo-saxon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. I'm also fascinated by these governor generals all over the commonwealth. They're like semi-royalty in their countries.

But to go to the real topic of this thread... Over here in Sweden, the relevance of our royal family is constantly debated. If you are left-wing, you probably want to get rid of the monarchy, but more right-wing people usually want to keep it because of the tradition. And if we suddenly got rid of our king and had a president, it would only feel wrong for me. Sweden has never had a president, and I want to keep our monarchy. We've had kings and queens since the middle ages, and I can't see how a president would do a better job as heads of states than what our royals do. We already can elect our parlament, Riksdagen, and throught this, we'll also elect our goverment. And that should be enough for us. Sometimes, it feels like the royals just go around looking pretty, but if they were no longer heads of states, then what would they do? Our king and his three children are all raised into being royals, and even our queen, though she's born as a commoner, has been royal for thirty years now, and that's almost half her life. It just wouldn't be fair of us to do to them like the greeks did to Constantin and Anne-Marie and their family. We have a royal family, and we should keep them. We can elect our parlament and our goverment, and we should be satisfied with that.

 

[RoyallyRich]

I am a Monarchist.But I feel that after much reading and researching with the current issues of the world that a powerless and constitutional Monarchy might really become an irrelevant institution.They are there to remind us of national identity,culture,and tradition.But with the world being so cynical today this would not even be so important.Monarchy needs to be at least powerful in the excutive level so that questions like this would not have to come up.You don't hear people asking what is the relevancy of the American presidency.

 

[Next Star]

Being American I know nothing about a monarchy because the nation I live in is a republic.I feel it is irrevelant to have a monarchy and the people have right to decide what type of governemnt they want being they live here.Royals do get watched by the public because of their high postion and rank among those in their nations plus others around the world.