The Value Of Monarchy

[Blog Real]

I'm 100% monarchy. Always monarchy.
The monarchy is the best regime, the oldest and the most identity.
Most countries were the kings who built.

I pity that Portugal has not already monarchy.

: Sad:

 

[DukeJonathan81]

I am for monarchy, reasons including:

• An non-political Head of State, fact is a President cannot truly represent all the people as they are generally allied with an Political Party, how can a conservative president represent Socialists?

• Tradition and Heritage. Monarchy is one of the oldest Governments in the world, it has lasted for thousands of years, why not thousands more? It is also very important to several countries national identity, wouldn't it be boring of we all had the same government? Actually, a lot of European nations do...

• Tourism. Despite what republicans will say (especially concerning the UK) the royals are very good for tourism in their respective nations. In 2012 HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms celebrated her Diamond Jubilee- her 60th year on the throne(s). There were great celebrations, and it brought much attention and people to London, many came from all over to see the spectacle and many more millions tuned into Television to see the events. This brought much tourism to the United Kingdom. As does the yearly trooping of the colour and state opening of Parliament.
Or what about the Dutch abdication and inauguration 2013? This brought international attention to a small European country called the Netherlands, or what about the Popes resignation? All eyes were on a small Italian micro-nation called Vatican City.

• Continuation. HM Queen Elizabeth II has been on her throne(s) for 62 years, we know who will succeed her, we know her successors successor is. One family being there throughout the centuries isn't bad. Unlike republican presidency's which have the president there for about the maximum of ten years and they leave to scrounge off the tax payers money for the rest of their lives with their presidential pension, a royal never stops serving their country.

• A middle class royal family. The royals know how to reinvent themselves with every generation, with elected politicians it's just the same bad joke.

• They serve their nations well. Royals serve in the army, they prepare for there roles their entire life. Presidents and their family's don't, simple.

• Their down to earth. Especially in the last couple of years, royals have been marrying into "lower down" families. The current Queen of Spain was a news reporter, she sat their and told people the happenings every evening. The current married spouse of the Crown Princess of Sweden was a fitness instructor. The Queen of the Netherlands worked in a bank, the Crown Princess of Denmark lived half way across the world in a nation called Australia, the Queen of Norway once worked as an bartender. The Duchess of Cambridge in the United Kingdom worked free time in a clothes shop. These people are all from working and middle class backgrounds, royal spouses choose their wives and husbands well. Presidents sleep with who they like and don't get criticism.

• The Alternative. They are better than what their nations could have, enough said.

• It's not Undemocratic. Some of the top listed democracies in the world are monarchies, explain how it is Undemocratic. And not everybody will be able to elect their head of state, in some countries committees do it instead.

• And it's certainly not archaic. Republicanism has its routes in Ancient Rome and Greece, the Roman Republic being created in 700 BC, the Hellenic Republic being created in 100 BC. Republicanism is just as old as monarchy.

• Democracy only exists because of monarchy. It's funny how the original modern version of democracy came out of monarchist States, i.e Britain (and it's colonies), France, Russia, Prussia etc. Modern Parliaments were set up by the monarchs of these countries through "enlightened absolutism", the early republican States were hectic and had absolutely no working Government what's so ever (Revolutionary France being an example). Frances had a a bankrupt, but stable, government before the revolution. After it, France had an both bankrupt and unstable government plus a government that had just murdered millions!

• It's not costly. If anything, republican governments are generally more costly (as statistics have shown). And anyway, changing an entire governmental institution would be costly as well. And, in my opinion, you get more out of the royals in a year than your would from a politician in 20.

• Really, what would be the point in getting rid of the worlds remaining monarchies? If the people wish to keep them, then it should be by the peoples wish. As I have said before, monarchy has lasted for thousands of years, why not thousands more?




Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I'm for monarchy in places that have a monarchy that function well. Why rock the boat? I'm for republics in places that have a republic that function well.

You'd never really know the value of the monarchy unless you abolished it for 10 years, and then did an evaluation, which is impossible. And even if one country abolished a monarchy for good, whether it worked for the better or not would be no indication of whether it would be for the benefit of any other country.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

I'm for monarchy in places that have a monarchy that function well. Why rock the boat? I'm for republics in places that have a republic that function well.



You'd never really know the value of the monarchy unless you abolished it for 10 years, and then did an evaluation, which is impossible. And even if one country abolished a monarchy for good, whether it worked for the better or not would be no indication of whether it would be for the benefit of any other country.

Yes, I agree


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[Irish Lady]

I'm for monarchy in places that have a monarchy that function well. Why rock the boat? I'm for republics in places that have a republic that function well.

You'd never really know the value of the monarchy unless you abolished it for 10 years, and then did an evaluation, which is impossible. And even if one country abolished a monarchy for good, whether it worked for the better or not would be no indication of whether it would be for the benefit of any other country.

I agree with your comment 100% percent.

 

[Irish Lady]

I am for monarchy, reasons including:

• An non-political Head of State, fact is a President cannot truly represent all the people as they are generally allied with an Political Party, how can a conservative president represent Socialists?

• Tradition and Heritage. Monarchy is one of the oldest Governments in the world, it has lasted for thousands of years, why not thousands more? It is also very important to several countries national identity, wouldn't it be boring of we all had the same government? Actually, a lot of European nations do...

• Tourism. Despite what republicans will say (especially concerning the UK) the royals are very good for tourism in their respective nations. In 2012 HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms celebrated her Diamond Jubilee- her 60th year on the throne(s). There were great celebrations, and it brought much attention and people to London, many came from all over to see the spectacle and many more millions tuned into Television to see the events. This brought much tourism to the United Kingdom. As does the yearly trooping of the colour and state opening of Parliament.
Or what about the Dutch abdication and inauguration 2013? This brought international attention to a small European country called the Netherlands, or what about the Popes resignation? All eyes were on a small Italian micro-nation called Vatican City.

• Continuation. HM Queen Elizabeth II has been on her throne(s) for 62 years, we know who will succeed her, we know her successors successor is. One family being there throughout the centuries isn't bad. Unlike republican presidency's which have the president there for about the maximum of ten years and they leave to scrounge off the tax payers money for the rest of their lives with their presidential pension, a royal never stops serving their country.

• A middle class royal family. The royals know how to reinvent themselves with every generation, with elected politicians it's just the same bad joke.

• They serve their nations well. Royals serve in the army, they prepare for there roles their entire life. Presidents and their family's don't, simple.

• Their down to earth. Especially in the last couple of years, royals have been marrying into "lower down" families. The current Queen of Spain was a news reporter, she sat their and told people the happenings every evening. The current married spouse of the Crown Princess of Sweden was a fitness instructor. The Queen of the Netherlands worked in a bank, the Crown Princess of Denmark lived half way across the world in a nation called Australia, the Queen of Norway once worked as an bartender. The Duchess of Cambridge in the United Kingdom worked free time in a clothes shop. These people are all from working and middle class backgrounds, royal spouses choose their wives and husbands well. Presidents sleep with who they like and don't get criticism.

• The Alternative. They are better than what their nations could have, enough said.

• It's not Undemocratic. Some of the top listed democracies in the world are monarchies, explain how it is Undemocratic. And not everybody will be able to elect their head of state, in some countries committees do it instead.

• And it's certainly not archaic. Republicanism has its routes in Ancient Rome and Greece, the Roman Republic being created in 700 BC, the Hellenic Republic being created in 100 BC. Republicanism is just as old as monarchy.

• Democracy only exists because of monarchy. It's funny how the original modern version of democracy came out of monarchist States, i.e Britain (and it's colonies), France, Russia, Prussia etc. Modern Parliaments were set up by the monarchs of these countries through "enlightened absolutism", the early republican States were hectic and had absolutely no working Government what's so ever (Revolutionary France being an example). Frances had a a bankrupt, but stable, government before the revolution. After it, France had an both bankrupt and unstable government plus a government that had just murdered millions!

• It's not costly. If anything, republican governments are generally more costly (as statistics have shown). And anyway, changing an entire governmental institution would be costly as well. And, in my opinion, you get more out of the royals in a year than your would from a politician in 20.

• Really, what would be the point in getting rid of the worlds remaining monarchies? If the people wish to keep them, then it should be by the peoples wish. As I have said before, monarchy has lasted for thousands of years, why not thousands more?




Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

I think this is a brilliant comment.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If a country has a monarchy and the sovereign in his decision making keeps in mind the viewpoints of his subjects, should the monarch be commended?
However how many monarchies actually are there in which the sovereign has major authority in decision making?
​

 

[Admiral Horthy]

And I'd certainly want him to be my King. The man, to me, "get's it". Constitutional matters aside, the apparent ease with which he interacts with those he meets does not suggest to me he is ordinary, but quite the opposite. He is a man who despite the immense wealth and privilege, is personable and considerate. The man reflects some wonderful values though yet a good many are rather dissimilar to those of his father and his grandmother where the public are concerned. He isn't intimated to get involved and I mean hands on. And regularly at that.

It's laughable to think this man should in some way replicate the way his father handles himself socially. If anything, you'd probably want to distance yourself from that style of social awkwardness which Charles certainly has. And it seems to be what William has done and good for him. He isn't his father. Though let it be said that that may have more to do with William being his own person, than intentionally wanting to be different to his father.

Catherine may be common born, but evidently has a good deal of self respect and handles herself with such dignity. And whilst the consort of the monarch has no constitutional significance in Australia, as a dual British citizen, I have not the slightest ounce of protest that this lady should one day, as is currently expected to happen, become my Queen. And as an Australian, my sentiment is unchanged. She'll make a wonderful wife for the King of Australia in the unlikely event William actually becomes King of this continent and her external territories.

Intelligent, engaging, trustworthy and loyal. It's my opinion you'd be hard pressed to find all those qualities in your average 'girl next door'. So certainly for me, there is something quite reassuring and something very 'uncommon' about this young woman.

Such an intelligent and well thought out post. I quoted the meat of your post but I assure you I agree wholeheartedly with all of it. For Australia the Crown serves as a link to Australia's founding people, and the basis of her culture, traditions, language and religion.

It will be a great loss to the world when the politicians finally change Australia from Britain in the Pacific to just another third world country.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

And of course you have both totally missed my point.

If they are so common and ordinary why should they have the automatic right to be Head of State and deny that right to some other common and ordinary person?

Why shouldn't they have the right? What could be more fair than becoming king by the Grace of God or an accident of birth, whichever you prefer? An elected or appointed head of state is a politician of one sort or another who owes his or her position to his party and contributors. He owes not the people, as a king does, but the people who put him in power.

Furthermore life isn't fair, never was and never will be, every boy can not be president any more than every boy can be king. Just the way it is.

 

[Thumbahlina]

yeah because there are a lot of noble families, which don't always get to let others know and have privy business, I guess, royalty makes sense of it so the rest of us don't have to. Social classes still exist today, but for some it relates a bit deeper. There are just many names of noble class, really, that as an American it is just difficult to understand the relevance of who they are and what they do beside their opinions unless they have a diplomatic license plate, then it's like get away from them and really unless they do their family business with a diplomatic passport or diplomatic license plate is not any business I might need to notice. Here people work and their job is what they do and their name is Mr. Ms or Mrs. So I can understand the difference and how the social class thing was an issue. Royalty is important, because it is a part of the government.

 

[Rudolph]

From CNBC

Countries that have a king or queen as a head of state are on average more creditworthy and have stronger balance sheets than republics, new data shows.

Sovereigns with a monarchy have an average credit rating of 'A-' according to a new report from one of the largest ratings agencies, Standard & Poors, which rates 129 countries, 39 of which have a ruling monarch.

Read more: Is having a monarchy better for your economy?

 

[NotHRH]

yeah because there are a lot of noble families, which don't always get to let others know and have privy business, I guess, royalty makes sense of it so the rest of us don't have to. Social classes still exist today, but for some it relates a bit deeper. There are just many names of noble class, really, that as an American it is just difficult to understand the relevance of who they are and what they do beside their opinions unless they have a diplomatic license plate, then it's like get away from them and really unless they do their family business with a diplomatic passport or diplomatic license plate is not any business I might need to notice. Here people work and their job is what they do and their name is Mr. Ms or Mrs. So I can understand the difference and how the social class thing was an issue. Royalty is important, because it is a part of the government.

Only in a ceremonial sense - especially in Europe.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

They are still relevant. A handful of the most wealthy, most developed, most liberal, most tolerant and most open countries in the world have their head of state delivered by hereditary succession. If they had no any relevance anymore, they would have ended the monarchy and opted for a republican form of state. Since they have not done so, these monarchies still have a relevance. With millions and millions of taxpayers' money funding these and with people flocking into the streets to cheer and adhere, what we do not see in republics.

 

[Mbruno]

Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?

It suffices to follow the agenda of some of the European royal families on sites like this one to see that, even in modern Europe, they still have a relevant role.

Some European monarchs, e.g. in Belgium or maybe in Denmark, still seem to have a residual political role, retaining quite a lot of influence for example in government formation. More broadly though, all European monarchs, even those who are purely ceremonial like the King of Sweden, seem to do quite a lot of diplomatic work (e.g. in state and official visits) that is relevant to promote their respective countries' interests. In recent years, we have also seen some queen consorts like Maxima or Mathilde take a relevant international role of their own by becoming engaged with UN agencies or other international organizations.

Domestically, in addition to whatever official duties the constitution may assign to them (with respect to parliament or the government), European monarchs and their families also seem to do a lot in terms of supporting local businesses and communities and they do so in a way a politician could not since, unlike politicians, they are not tainted by divisive partisanship and do not have to worry about short-term electoral calculations. Monarchs, because of their political neutrality, are also better equipped than politicians to fulfill duties like presiding over military ceremionies and national feasts, or delivering a Christmas or New Year's message.

I understand that many people are bothered about the hereditary nature of the succession in a monarchy and question why an arbitrary family should have the monopoly of the office of Head of State for their firstborn child. Those are legitimate issues, but I think that, in some countries at least, the royal house is so deeply connected with the country's history throughout so many generations that local citizens brush aside those issues in name of tradition and a sense of continuity.

 

[Osipi]

Its been a while since I've read this thread in its entirety but from what I've seen in the last couple of pages, the relevancy of royalty has been mostly centered on the political aspects of royal families and their roles.

One important angle of relevancy, to me, would be not in the political arena but in the service to the people of their country by means of patronages and drawing attention to issues and organizations that deal with these issues and their charitable works. For example, within the British Royal Family, there are quite a bit of inroads made into establishing a good rapport between royals and organizations that seek to make a difference in people's lives and issues that affect the world around them. For example, there are many, many people that have benefited through programs established by the Prince of Wales and his charities and his Prince's Trust. William has set the wheels in motion globally to protect and preserve endangered species and Harry has had remarkable success in his endeavors to call attention to and get support for wounded service personnel and has founded a international event for these warriors in the Invictus games. Anne has her Save the Children which she has worked tirelessly for over the years and we can't forget the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme eithe. I'm sure that the royals of other European nations have their own patronages and charities that benefit very well from the work they do for them.

Royal families may be only figureheads as far as the country's governmental and political wheels grind but their people benefit from their involvement in many ways other than just viewing the pomp and circumstance and traditional values that the royals keep alive.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It works on local scale too. The local lady of the manor is often also the chairwoman of the local music band, the local lady of the manor often also sits in the board of the local bank, etc.

Look how the "Jeunesse" (local unmarried men) bring homage to the Count and Countess de Liedekerke de Pailhé at Eijsden Castle (near Maastricht, the Netherlands). Why would they do that? Simply because it has been done for centuries... (The brassband is not uniformed here because it is the Monday, the second day of the annual Fair. After this homage the big party will start. A day earlier, the Sunday was uniformed, with a religious procession).

What we see here on a small local scale, is the same as on national scale: adherence, tradition, attachment to a family.

 

[Curryong]

Over the past few days there have been interesting discussions between Richard Palmer and others on his Twitter page regarding what he worriedly regards as a growing apathy towards the BRF, a disinterest in reading about even the younger royals by Britons under 30. I have noticed this myself among my younger relatives who live in Britain in the last few years. I do feel that apathy is the great danger this Royal family faces.

Now Ken Wharfe, ex Royal Protection Officer, has spoken out about what he sees as the BRF's future.



Princess Diana's former bodyguard Ken Wharfe REJECTS Royals | Adam Helliker | Columnists | Comment | Daily Express

 

[Rudolph]

Britain has no republican movement to speak of. Its not going anywhere anytime soon.

As to Richard Palmer, if people aren't wise to his game by now, they never will be. Richard is trying to shape opinion rather than reflect it. He knows full well the BRF is popular and relevant, with the younger members especially so. His paper reported on it just 4 months ago .

Queen has support from three quarters of nation as she becomes longest serving monarch | Royal | News | Daily Express

As for Ken Wharfe saying royals like the Duke of Kent should retire from public life, I won't dignify that comment with a response.

 

[Jacknch]

From the article:

A total of 42 per cent think the sovereign needs to be more progressive. More than half (56 per cent) consider the monarchy to be an elitist institution

When they say "progressive" what exactly do they mean? People will interpret the word differently give their answer accordingly. Given the limits that our monarch has in terms of what they are allowed to do in that constitutional role, progressive is quite impossible.

Charles seems to be quite progressive in his views, yet people complain about it!

I'm not sure what is meant by "elitist" institution. Obviously if it's a case of only one person can be monarch and no one else can, then it is elitist - but so too is the office of a president, or private schools, or private members clubs, the local bowls club, the executive board of any company and not least of all members of a government.

 

[Rudolph]

I agree. Monarchy really can't help but be elitist and imo that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Too many times we read from certain commentators the BRF is becoming watered down or too 'common'

The fact so many people think its still an elitist institution is a good thing imo.

As for progressive views, as you stated Charles is very progressive on his views towards the environment and religion and he get flak for it.

 

[Skippyboo]

Autumn, Mike, Kate - all marry into the BRF no aristocratic background at all. All the grandkids sent to schools for all of their education which is a recent thing. William and Harry served in military mixed with regular folks. William works a paid job as a air ambulance pilot.

Compare this to 150 years ago, no commoners would have married into the royals, William and Harry would be going from house party to house party shooting game, watching horse races, fox hunting. Only socializing with the upper class. Little no charity work. Zara, Bea & Eugenie would be married off to foreign European Princes.

I think it save to say they have progressed.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[SnowBirds]

It works on local scale too. The local lady of the manor is often also the chairwoman of the local music band, the local lady of the manor often also sits in the board of the local bank, etc.

Look how the "Jeunesse" (local unmarried men) bring homage to the Count and Countess de Liedekerke de Pailhé at Eijsden Castle (near Maastricht, the Netherlands). Why would they do that? Simply because it has been done for centuries... (The brassband is not uniformed here because it is the Monday, the second day of the annual Fair. After this homage the big party will start. A day earlier, the Sunday was uniformed, with a religious procession).

What we see here on a small local scale, is the same as on national scale: adherence, tradition, attachment to a family.

Those are the very things that that I so appreciate about royal families and here in the US we have lost our way in life of valuing those very things. We might not have a royal family and yet through the decades have lost the traditions and values that came with the first people of Europe that settled here.

 

[NotHRH]

Those are the very things that that I so appreciate about royal families and here in the US we have lost our way in life of valuing those very things. We might not have a royal family and yet through the decades have lost the traditions and values that came with the first people of Europe that settled here.

But as Americans, I feel we should continue making our own traditions and have values that represent our culture. It has been almost 240 years since our independence. The US has not "lost" it's way; it is way beyond lost and there is no word that can easily define the state of chaos that exists here. But to suggest that a US royal family would help to keep simpleness and traditions/values alive is laughable at best. I am not being rude, only realistic. Continuing to constantly tweak and evolve can only help in the long run, otherwise we are doomed.

 

[NotHRH]

From the article:



When they say "progressive" what exactly do they mean? People will interpret the word differently give their answer accordingly. Given the limits that our monarch has in terms of what they are allowed to do in that constitutional role, progressive is quite impossible.

Charles seems to be quite progressive in his views, yet people complain about it!

I'm not sure what is meant by "elitist" institution. Obviously if it's a case of only one person can be monarch and no one else can, then it is elitist - but so too is the office of a president, or private schools, or private members clubs, the local bowls club, the executive board of any company and not least of all members of a government.

An "elitist" institution, when applied royalty, means royals feel as though they are better people than everybody else. They can appear snobby to the rest of the world.

 

[Osipi]

One thing I think the countries with royal family such as the UK has is that with the hereditary succession, it gives a sense of continuity of things in a world that is constantly changing. Holding on to traditions hundreds of years old mixed in with a population that is ever changing seems to present a balance to me.

The US has always had its own people that have been mainstays for traditions but they change with the generations. Bert Parks was synonymous with the Miss America Pageant as was Jerry Lewis and his Labor Day Telethon and "The Oldest Teenager in the World" Dick Clark *was* New Years Eve. My parent's generation saw Guy Lombardo and his band of Renown as New Year's. The younger generation may associate Anderson Cooper with New Year's Eve.

The US will not and cannot have the continuity that a royal family such as the Windsors represent. Each country is unique unto itself and expresses itself as such.

 

[NotHRH]

Opisi
The US will not and cannot have the continuity that a royal family such as the Windsors represent. Each country is unique unto itself and expresses itself as such.

Agreed. :thumbup:

 

[Feologild]

Are monarchies still relevant and useful in the 21st Century?

That is my questio

 

[Muhler]

The fact that you are here at a very busy royal forum, one among many sites dedicated to royalty is an indication it is.
But I'd rather reverse the question: Why in your opinion shouldn't monarchies be relevant in today's world?

 

[LadyGabrielle]

I think the world would be very boring without Royals and their day to day comings and goings. Not to say that they have any say really as to what happens in their Kingdoms because most of them are just figureheads but they do represent history and culture and dollars. I think without Royals there wouldn't be so many charities that benefit from having a royal appear at a charity function. Without royals there would be no royal weddings and royal births and there would be no over the top ceremonies for all to enjoy. I think some of us look at royals and try to better ourselves by emulating the good they do and there are some that loathe them for what they have and how they live. Without royals life would be rather dull, to me anyway. It's just nice to sometimes get away and live in another world even if it's from afar, for just a little while.

 

[Kitty1224]

At the end of the day the world won't be over if monarchies were gone. We evolve and move forward. I like royalty because its like an escapism. A fantasy!