Anti-Monarchy Left, Monarchy Right?

[CSENYC]

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

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

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

[Marengo]

I think that all reigning families in Europe (save Liechtenstein) know that they can not be too open about being more or less in favor of one or the other party. Their role is to be above party politics and be a unifying symbol. In that light they will always oppositionparties to a state event. If there would have been a Labour government I am sure that some of them would have been there. But it seems that the RF wanted to stress that the wedding was not a state- but a private event.

As for royals themselves, they will never tell us. But Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians was known as the 'Red Queen' and Beatrix was labelled as 'red' too (by the CIA I think even). In the circles like of extreme-right wing politican Geert Wilders, she is regarded as somebody who 'embraced the left wing multi cultural ideals'. Note that in many countries left wing parties dropped the abolition of the monarchy from their party programme.

But in general I would think that most European reigning monarchs are christian democrats/conservatives indeed, though they will never say so openly.

[Royal_Affair]

I doubt we'll find out what the royals actually support. They most likely support the side who supports them (which is the right side mostly). It would be foolish for the royals to support the side that plan to abolish the RF.
However, they have to be neutral about it and support (publicly at least) the current government.
I hadn't heard about Charles refusing to invite Labour Leaders. Wasn't that a problem?

[KittyAtlanta]

I hadn't heard that Charles had done that, either. I think Charles is more of a conservative centrist, in that he is rabidly "green," but his "style" leans to more conservatism when it comes to architecture, music, etc. I think Charles and I think along the same lines -- that's why I like him so much.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I think that all reigning families in Europe (save Liechtenstein) know that they can not be too open about being more or less in favor of one or the other party. Their role is to be above party politics and be a unifying symbol. In that light they will always oppositionparties to a state event. If there would have been a Labour government I am sure that some of them would have been there. But it seems that the RF wanted to stress that the wedding was not a state- but a private event.

As for royals themselves, they will never tell us. But Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians was known as the 'Red Queen' and Beatrix was labelled as 'red' too (by the CIA I think even). In the circles like of extreme-right wing politican Geert Wilders, she is regarded as somebody who 'embraced the left wing multi cultural ideals'. Note that in many countries left wing parties dropped the abolition of the monarchy from their party programme.

But in general I would think that most European reigning monarchs are christian democrats/conservatives indeed, though they will never say so openly.

Not all favor "right" all the time...and don't forget who's asking,someone from a different political system where left and right have a totally different and off the planet meaning then we have here.That's one.Two is that it's not the right wing parties that save or saved Monarchies and upcoming problems within,but the socialists...at least here in The Netherlands.The "left" always turned out to be way less "leftists" when matters concerning the Royal House came into view.And that still is the case.That ofcourse also has to do a great deal with the respect a Royal House generates.Hugely important,and we are in a grand position in that field as well.Reps here are of no consequence and no more importance then they claim they have themselves and consist of a elite little troop of puffed up boarding school style old farts with nothing else on their hands then talking themselves out of total oblivion from time to timeThey'll never get a serious view here,and do not deserve one...they are alien to us.
Btw,where is that so-called piece in the NY Times?Or is it just to get an answer by any shot here?If one really wants to know one sees to it they collect enough info before asking a question on the details...we don't do free articles for others to fly with...I know that happens too.


On EII,HM is known to have had a more then workable relation with Labour PM Harold Wilson while she privately might have thought of some Tory PM's as puffed up amateur pricks......is that how it's called,or should I say Cameron..?..

[CSENYC]

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

Royal wedding: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown not invited

Edited to add: Here is another:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211696

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

[Lumutqueen]

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

[royalistbert]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

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

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

[prinz_von_buzim]

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

[Esmerelda]

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

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Esmerelda

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

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

Anyway, Maggie was invited to the wedding.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

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

Royal wedding: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown not invited

Edited to add: Here is another:

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

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

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

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by lucien

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

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

[cepe]

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

[Meraude]

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

[Esmerelda]

Originally Posted by Meraude

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

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

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by Esmerelda

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

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

[EIIR]

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

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

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

[Meraude]

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

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

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Meraude

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

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

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

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