The Value Of Monarchy

[Countessmeout]

Royals are a figure head, a symbol of the country. In times of great trouble like terrorist attacks they often offer a rallying point of prayers and such. They seem as relevant today as two hundred years ago.

They also bring much needed attention to good causes. And they bring in tourism. Yes, countries without royals are still popular with palaces, but people do enjoy coming out for the pomp and circumstance of events like weddings and trooping. Which brings money into the area.

 

[Osipi]

What I think is actually the best part of having a monarchy is that what they do, they do for all of the people without a political agenda. They are figureheads sure but they also represent their nations as a whole people which is sorely lacking sometimes in the country I live in. They keep alive the ages old traditions and history of where the people came from, what they've gone through and still have to face together as a nation.

Frankly, I think they are national treasures.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I live in the Netherlands and in all honesty the monarchy has almost no relevance. King or no King, the machinery of State will go on, water will flow out of the taps, people will go to work like they do, day in, day out.

But being an irrelevance does not mean that it must be abolished. People feel attachment to the royal family. They belong to the most popular public figures. They are attached to the protocol and ceremonial which are now and then displayed. When palaces are opened, or when there are exhibitions or just (like at the moment) the royal airplane will end its function because a new is purchased, in no-time all cards to visit the outgoing plane are away.

So it is an irrelevance in daily life but that does not translate into: chop these heads off! Aside of nagging about costs, most people simply see the Royal House as part of the interior, as ornament of state, which is followed with interest.

I think this will more or less be similar in other monarchies.

 

[Winnie]

Duc et Pair. I believe you have expressed brilliantly. Countries without monarchy have other symbols that they respect to bring country together at times. Kings and Queens are human symbols that their citizens respect and expect to bring continuance to a country's traditions and customs. We citizens of non monarch countries are fascinated watching the different customs played out along with expensive jewelry from ages past worn along with those expensive clothes. To most of us it is a fascinating fairy tale life that only a few will ever enjoy. I personally give them all credit for withstanding all the criticism the media and citizens throw at them without them retaliating. The average person would find that quite taxing. So yes, most respect Kings and Queens although don't care too much about their personal families. I sincerely hope there will always be Kings and Queens. Lovely.

 

[AristoCat]

I believe there is a place for royals and I will always believe that; I do know however that the 'fairy-tale' narrative has to end and royals have GOT to be asked upfront "do you really want to be in the succession with all the rules or are you going to walk away and live a life free of the constrictions, but no automatic deference?" Any threats to walk if they don't get what they want should be met with a smack-down and being told to bug off. Haakon hurled that threat at the head of his nation and I am certain there hasn't been any point to putting up with him. I would have ordered him to walk his backside out of that palace and sign away his status in a session of Parliament.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Most monarchs are not figureheads, and politically dominant monarchies are abundant. For instance:

In contrast, in Bahrain since protests began in mid-February [2011], at least 13 protestors have been killed during government crackdowns, and hundreds have been injured. Security forces have attacked hospitals and medical staff. Opposition leaders have been arrested, and Bahrain’s government has welcomed Saudi troops and declared martial law to quell what have been largely peaceful protests. All 18 members of the largest voting bloc in parliament have resigned to protest the government’s violent response to demands to give the elected parliament more power.

The decision to crackdown rather than take substantive steps toward a constitutional monarchy in Bahrain has been made by a king, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

The Constitutional Monarchy Option in Morocco and Bahrain | Middle East Policy Council

Mr Thaksin, a telecommunications billionaire, had been swept to power in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. He managed to get Thailand's economy back on track by introducing mildly redistributive policies that benefitted people in previously neglected provincial areas. As a result, he became the first prime minister to complete a full term in office. His popularity soared, partly at the expense of the monarchy.

Previously, King Bhumibol had been regarded as the supreme patron of rural Thailand, initiating hundreds of development projects. With Mr Thaksin's rise many came to realise that an elected leader could improve their lives and lead to real structural change. They no longer felt dependent on a supposedly benevolent monarch who ruled by birthright.

But royalists began to fight back, spearheading a movement against Mr Thaksin which they formed in late 2005. Thaksin, however, proved resilient, backed by the majority of Thais. Poll after poll showed his apparently unbeatable popularity.

Without Bhumibol's blessing, he could never have been ousted by a coup in September 2006. Its leaders were granted an audience with the king immediately afterwards which was a clear sign of royal support.

Viewpoint: Did Thai king help stifle democracy? - BBC News

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yesterday Manuel Valls, the former Premier Ministre of France commented on Emmanuel Macron, the new Président de la République (the two are not so on speaking terms anymore): "His entrance at the Louvre was positive. That mix of jeunesse and tradition is good. I have no problem with bonapartism: I know that this country needs symbols, something what François Hollande has forgotten".

François Hollande tried to be Monsieur Normal, but the French do not like their president riding on a scooter to his maîtresse. So far Emmanuel Macron has indeed used a mitterrandesque slowness in protocol: dignité. The pace he walked over that loooong red carpet at the cour of the Palais de l'Élysée, on the slow beat of the drums. The solmenity of the passation de pouvoirs. For so far the new president has understood the power of symbolism (at election night he walked to the Louvre under the arousing tones of Van Beethoven's Ode an die Freude, the anthem of the European Union. That was clearly prepared on beforehand).

See picture

So the question in this thread: royal relevance, lies in the power of symbolism, the theatre of state, the grandeur of a nation and it's history. France -however a republic- (and Portugal, and Italy) know this symbolism.

At the same time: that Macron does this, and not a King, is illustrative for the fact that it is not so hard to miss a monarchy when it is about splendor. Of course Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, Chirac, etc. were divisive and partisan figures. A King is, usually, unpartial and "durable" (longer than a presidential term).

 

[Muhler]

You are absolutely right. I believe most people like a little splendor from time to time. A national pride thing I guess.
And those who don't absolutely love to complain about it. Alternatively point out to everybody and everything that they do not care one bit while, by chance of course, having followed it themselves.
So everybody are happy, except for the small minority who truly don't care. But who cares?

 

[wyevale]

For myself, I see the value of Monarchy essentially as providing -

1) An impartial apolitical centre figure around whom all citizens [regardless of political affiliations] can unite, especially during times of National crisis or celebration.

2) A Head of state beyond the reach of faction/machination/ambition or skulduggery.

3) A mirror of the 'family' unit [to which we ALL belong], in wider society, and whose 'milestones' we can mark in our National life..

 

[Al_bina]

Yesterday Manuel Valls, the former Premier Ministre of France commented on Emmanuel Macron, the new Président de la République (the two are not so on speaking terms anymore): "His entrance at the Louvre was positive. That mix of jeunesse and tradition is good. I have no problem with bonapartism: I know that this country needs symbols, something what François Hollande has forgotten".
... [snipped]

It is absolutely wrong to apply the term "bonapartism" to President Macron. General Bonapart proved to be a successful military commander before becoming a leader of France. One can not say the same about the current president of the French republic.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In this day and age, if countries have a monarchy, the people should support the monarchy. I am not referring to financial support. A monarch knows that he is doing a favorable job when he has the support of the people.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In this day and age people have the right to choose to support or not support their government and that includes those of us who live in a monarchy choosing whether or not to support the monarchy. I don't support Australia being a monarchy. I think it is wrong.

I notice you are from the USA - do you argue that everyone should support the elected President in such a country? or do you believe that voicing opposition should be allowed?

Personally I believe in a country with freedom of speech, such as Australia, we should be, and are, free to voice our opposition to the monarchy, or other aspects of our government.

 

[W.Y.CII]

It's a double-sided relationship, the monarchy works well so people favour them (or, don't mind their existence), people support the monarchy so it remains stable. OTOH, the monarchy works poorly so people dislike them, people oppose the monarchy so it becomes unstable (and maybe even be abolished).

I think one of the concept of modern monarchy is that the monarchs have to obtain support from their people. People even do not support the government they elected when they perform poorly, so why do they have to support their monarch which they can't choose unconditionally?

 

[Muhler]

The main difference between an elected head of state and a monarchy is that the monarchy is an institution and a family, that is merely headed by one person.
So if the monarch is poor, there may always be the heir to look to, or a sibling of the monarch to look to.
Without going into details, there is an Asian monarchy that is having these problems right now.
So a monarchy carry a lot more momentum than an elected head of state, who can be voted out of office a few years later - in some places only to be replaced by someone equally poor, or who is loathed by the other half of the population.
And that I think is one of main reasons why many monarchies have survived.

 

[Denville]

The main difference between an elected head of state and a monarchy is that the monarchy is an institution and a family, that is merely headed by one person.
So if the monarch is poor, there may always be the heir to look to, or a sibling of the monarch to look to.
Without going into details, there is an Asian monarchy that is having these problems right now.
So a monarchy carry a lot more momentum than an elected head of state, who can be voted out of office a few years later - in some places only to be replaced by someone equally poor, or who is loathed by the other half of the population.
And that I think is one of main reasons why many monarchies have survived.

That's true, or even if the Monarch isn't perhaps very charming, or popular in the sense of easily getting on with people.. his wife may have charm and be abel to win people over...

 

[Mbruno]

Australian,
I think it depends on each individual country and its people. Mind you, the Monarch's and their families provide a continuity that isn't there with elected presidents/prime ministers ect. Take for example when the American President came to Australia some years ago. He was told that he and his wife would be the guests of Mr Hawke & his lovely wife, Hazel. Instead he arrives to find his host to be Mr Keating & his non Australian wife, Anita.
When visiting Britain a foreign head of state/President knows that his hostess will be HM Queen Elizabeth & her husband the Duke of Edinburgh and he/she won't get any nasty surprises.

The host of any state visit to Australia is not the prime minister, but rather the Givernor-General as the Queen’s representative.

 

[nisreen]

Does it worth to have royals?

Apart from the royal you like does having royals make any difference? Do they do any thing other than being photographed and give interviwes?
And if they realy do something does it equal to teir cost? That article from daily mail about clothes only so what about other costs?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5280261/Queen-Rania-Jordans-200K-wardrobe.html

 

[tommy100]

When the purpose or benefits of having a monarchy come up the arguments are usually some of the same:

1) it's reassuring for the public to have a Head of State that isn't a politician and one who faces re-election often meaning they are reliant of being popular all the time. Some people like knowing politicians, e.g. Prime Ministers, have to answer to somebody.

2) its history. Would most countries choose to have a monarchy if they hadn't have done so in the past, no. But for most countries its just the system they have so they see a comfort in a system that has served them so long.

3) monarchies have a tendency to bring more attention, more tourism and can boost trade in certain areas (fashion being one) more than a President can

As for it equalling their cost, well who knows the real answer to that. It depends if people thing they are good value for money or not. To me in the UK, having a monarch rather than president is worth all the money in the world just to avoid having one of our politicians as President.

 

[nisreen]

But if they spend all that money on fashion ,jewellery and other things why raising donations from ordinary people?

 

[Curryong]

I don't know about other monarchies in the world, but no European monarchy that I know of, including the British, go around raising 'donations' from the population in order to maintain their monarchy.

Like Presidents, the sovereign is usually paid a yearly allowance from the government in order to carry out the functions of Head of State. In some countries the Consort also gets an allowance as well, in others the King/Queen receives an amount and it is then distributed among those members who perform public duties, like the Crown Prince or Princess and their spouse.

As for spending vast amounts on jewellery most monarchies are centuries old and have large jewellery collections built up over the last two hundred years or more of tiaras, necklaces, bracelets etc. These don't belong to the individuals involved at all but are kept generation after generation.

 

[CSENYC]

If you think that electing a head of state is a better method than having a Western European-style kind of queen, just look at the USA and think again.

 

[Marengo]

I suppose we in monarchies are stuck with prime ministers, which potentially are of the same calibre .

 

[MARG]

That is true and also that we don't have to vote for the government and have a separate vote for the President. The prime minister is chosen by the party having already been elected by a constituent.

 

[Susan D]

I like the systems in Portugal, Finland and Eire where the presidents are elected and tend to be individuals who are not controversial. I dislike the cost of a real monarchy and of the presidencies in France and Greece. I also am bothered by the fact that no European monarch's younger child is self-supporting away from the family's or the government's largesse.

 

[Mbruno]

I like the systems in Portugal, Finland and Eire where the presidents are elected and tend to be individuals who are not controversial. I dislike the cost of a real monarchy and of the presidencies in France and Greece. I also am bothered by the fact that no European monarch's younger child is self-supporting away from the family's or the government's largesse.

Younger children are self-supporting in Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. They rely on state or family funds in Belgium, Denmark, and the UK. I don’t have enough information about Norway or Luxembourg .

 

[Somebody]

Younger children are self-supporting in Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. They rely on state or family funds in Belgium, Denmark, and the UK. I don’t have enough information about Norway or Luxembourg .

I don't think Carl Philip is self-supporting. He might have some private income but my impression is that he receives most of the money his family lives on from the royal family. Madeleine never earned money (her job at the World Childhood Foundation was a voluntary one), so also lived on family money and some money she received for representations. Now they also/mainly live of Chris' income I assume.

I do think at least Felix is self-supporting (or supported by his father-in-law's business) - at least not depended on some government income. Louis has a job but it seems they relied on family money as well. I assume Märtha Louise (who is the elder sibling) is not supported on a government grant but most likely partly lives of some 'family money'.

 

[QueenEmpath]

My country India has a long history with the monarchy. When it came under the British rule even then we have a monarch. Today i personally feel that it we be better to have a monarch then those politicians who put people against each other on the basis of religion, gender, colour, race, caste

 

[muriel]

Younger children are self-supporting in Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. They rely on state or family funds in Belgium, Denmark, and the UK. I don’t have enough information about Norway or Luxembourg .

Much as I would like them to get real jobs and build careers independent of the royal family, I have no problem with younger children of a monarch relying on family funding. In some cases (like Edward and sophie), they have tried to build independent careers, but it has ended badly.

 

[MissPeach77]

I'm an America just trying to understand. I respect them for what they have contributed, but do you guys really buy into the fact that they are "royal" and above the every day person? Because across the pond we look at it like it just seems you keep them around for tourist purposes, and I feel bad that you waste your already high taxes on supporting a bunch of people who don't really do anything and live boughie lives. You can have regular citizens contribute to charities, you don't need to pay a prince, out of the money you could contribute to your own family, to do that.

 

[Blog Real]

I'm an America just trying to understand. I respect them for what they have contributed, but do you guys really buy into the fact that they are "royal" and above the every day person? Because across the pond we look at it like it just seems you keep them around for tourist purposes, and I feel bad that you waste your already high taxes on supporting a bunch of people who don't really do anything and live boughie lives. You can have regular citizens contribute to charities, you don't need to pay a prince, out of the money you could contribute to your own family, to do that.

This is a wrong view of royal families. Royals now work, not all members of royal families are supported by tax money.
Nowadays only heirs receive money from taxpayers (at least in most cases).
Sustaining a monarchy is no more expensive than a republic.