The United States and Monarchy

[Futurist]

In June of 1961, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Philip Duke of Edinbourgh met John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie visited Buckingham Palace for the first time.


Here the photo of the meeting:
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-pro...pg?crop=1.00xw:0.675xh;0,0.325xh&resize=768:*

Quite amazing, when you think about it! Queen Elizabeth II was already reigning back when Harry Truman was US President! In fact, she has literally seen a whopping 14 US Presidents during her reign!

 

[Futurist]

Interesting article about why the US should be a constitutional monarchy, on Saturday's Real Clear Politics:

3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake - Vox

The article, and other articles by the same author that are linked from it, basically say that constitutional monarchies are best because (1) they have parliamentary systems that result in less gridlock than presidential systems, and (2) constitutional monarchs stay out of politics and let democracy run without their interference, unlike presidential system.

I find the prospect of having one political party run everything, as in a parliamentary system, frightening, but otherwise like the monarchy parts of what the author says.

Thoughts?

FWIW, a country can be a parliamentary system without it actually being a monarchy. Israel, for instance. One can argue that Israel's President serves a similar role as a monarch would, except the position is term-limited (I think; one term of seven years) and not hereditary.

 

[Futurist]

The main advantage IMHO of a constitutional monarchy is the clear separation between the ceremonial and politically neutral role of the Head of State and the partisan role of head of government. The flipside, however, is that monarchy is ultimately based on the hereditary principle, which is hard to defend, except in countries where there is clear bond between the reigning Royal Family and the history of the nation.

With respect to parliamentary government, I agree with the article that it has many positive advantages compared to the US presidential system. Furthermore, with the notable exception of Britain, most parliamentary democracies use some form. of proportional representation method of election, which makes it impossible for any single party to run the government alone as coalitions have to be built to form the cabinet.

Yeah, if one is an egalitarian, then arguing in favor of a hereditary head of state sounds rather difficult to defend--unless of course the alternative would be worse, such as some kind of authoritarian and/or totalitarian dictatorship. In theory, one can have an elective monarchy, but even then, this would have to be limited to royals and nobles, no? It's not like any commoner could simply be elected monarch, right? But some countries, such as Israel, do have a symbolic figurehead role for their president, who functions much like a monarch other than the fact that they are term-limited and it's not a hereditary position. Israel's President is likewise expected to be in a large sense above politics, et cetera. And the beauty of this is that anyone can become Israel's President; you don't need to be a royal or a noble or anything of that sort. In fact, I don't even think that you actually have to be Jewish for this!

 

[victor1319]

And the beauty of this is that anyone can become "...." President

In Germany we have such a system too... And it is shitty! Imho the problem is, that the future monarch is for his/her whole life trained to become a Royal, while the elected counterparts are not - and it shows.... They are usually not up to the task.

The only exception we had here in Germany was one dude "von Weizsäcker": Yep, he was a noble man.

 

[Futurist]

In Germany we have such a system too... And it is shitty! Imho the problem is, that the future monarch is for his/her whole life trained to become a Royal, while the elected counterparts are not - and it shows.... They are usually not up to the task.

The only exception we had here in Germany was one dude "von Weizsäcker": Yep, he was a noble man.

Edward VIII of Britain was trained his whole life to become a royal, and yet he didn't make a particularly good royal.

 

[victor1319]

Edward VIII of Britain was trained his whole life to become a royal, and yet he didn't make a particularly good royal.

Oh c'mon! He was not even crowned!

 

[Prinsara]

What about Wilhelm II?

 

[victor1319]

What about Wilhelm II?

He was not a "real" constitutional Monarch, but the decisive part of the government. Not a good example!

 

[Prinsara]

Imho the problem is, that the future monarch is for his/her whole life trained to become a Royal, while the elected counterparts are not - and it shows.... They are usually not up to the task.

How does constitutionality make the slightest bit of difference in this case, given that royals are by definition there for life, whatever system of government they've got?

Many were there for their whole lives. Many were trained. Many were not so good.

"Crowned" doesn’t really make much of a difference for Edward, either, considering he managed to alarm his entire Cabinet while he was there.

 

[victor1319]

How does constitutionality make the slightest bit of difference in this case...

Well, since the Monarchs have less political responsibilities nowadays, they make less mistakes.

Their job is mainly to entertain the kids and the elderly, which flock to their visits.. and to be unifying as Heads of State. A job, they all do well!

Our Federal Presidents here in Germany don't give me good feelings, quite the opposite!

 

[Prinsara]

Well, since the Monarchs have less political responsibilities nowadays, they make less mistakes.

Their job is mainly to entertain the kids and the elderly, which flock to their visits.. and to be unifying as Heads of State. A job, they all do well!

Our Federal Presidents here in Germany don't give me good feelings, quite the opposite!

Political responsibility doesn't necessarily matter, though. When you get a monarch who still doesn't want to do the job, or does it badly, it's quite alarming and usually destabilizing — and then you are generally stuck with that person, without recourse to an election or term limit. Then what?

 

[victor1319]

When you get a monarch who still doesn't want to do the job, or does it badly, it's quite alarming and usually destabilizing "..." Then what?

But Monarchs don't behave that way! Why? It is not "off with their heads" anymore, but the punishment for failures of constitutional Monarchs is nevertheless very harsh and drastic: Abolishment of Monarchy!

 

[Mbruno]

Well, Barbados just (officially) ditched the Queen this week. So I guess they didn't get the memo.

 

[Osipi]

I think the keyword to this discussion is actually "constitutional" rather than "monarchy". Absolute monarchy has mostly gone the route of the pet rock and has faded into obscurity as something of the past that has proven to be a detriment to a egalitarian society whereas a "constitutional" form of government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people" is at the heart of setting laws and policies for the good of all and limits the power of one to override the all. The monarch becomes the representative of *all* the people hence why being apolitical as the Head of State is so important.

In short, people got fed up with told what to do and found their voice and demanded representation. Nice part about a hereditary monarchy is that, unlike in a republic, there's no fight and green dollars spent to elect the next person that will represent *all* the people. In a republic, it's impossible for a Head of State to represent all the people because, for the most part, it's party politics that gets him to that spot in the first place.

 

[Prinsara]

But Monarchs don't behave that way! Why? It is not "off with their heads" anymore, but the punishment for failures of constitutional Monarchs is nevertheless very harsh and drastic: Abolishment of Monarchy!

Edward VIII was bad enough that there hasn't been such a drastic example since. Why? He never wanted to be king, but felt trapped there. Wrong place, wrong guy, wrong time.

Constantine II was well-meaning but couldn't cope with a combination of circumstances and politics. Greece doesn't have a monarchy anymore, yes.

Belgium does, however. They managed to force out the king they felt had done them wrong, so apparently you can dispose of a monarch you disapprove of and keep the system going. Though it's very unpleasant to get rid of the head of state in a monarchy or a republic, it seems.

 

[Denville]

But Monarchs don't behave that way! Why? It is not "off with their heads" anymore, but the punishment for failures of constitutional Monarchs is nevertheless very harsh and drastic: Abolishment of Monarchy!

How? Edward VIII was a failure as a king - the monarchy in the UK is still around. he wasn't badly treated, he was exiled but that was the worst that happened to him

 

[Denville]

I think the keyword to this discussion is actually "constitutional" rather than "monarchy". Absolute monarchy has mostly gone the route of the pet rock and has faded into obscurity as something of the past that has proven to be a detriment to a egalitarian society whereas a "constitutional" form of government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people" is at the heart of setting laws and policies for the good of all and limits the power of one to override the all. The monarch becomes the representative of *all* the people hence why being apolitical as the Head of State is so important.

n:

absolute monarchy has gone in Europe, for the most part, but not everywhere. There are other kingdoms where the monarch has much more power

 

[Alison H]

In a republic, it's impossible for a Head of State to represent all the people because, for the most part, it's party politics that gets him to that spot in the first place.

Exactly. A president, however popular they might be, and however nice they might be personally (probably not very, because "nice" people tend not to make it to the top of the political tree as they aren't ruthless enough), represents one political party, so they are essentially divisive because a lot of people will not support that particular party.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]


In a republic, it's impossible for a Head of State to represent all the people because, for the most part, it's party politics that gets him to that spot in the first place.

I do live in a monarchy and I can assure you it equally does not represent all the people either as there are quite a lot around who do not embrace the idea of hereditary succession and prefer to have a democratically elected head of state.

 

[Denville]

Exactly. A president, however popular they might be, and however nice they might be personally (probably not very, because "nice" people tend not to make it to the top of the political tree as they aren't ruthless enough), represents one political party, so they are essentially divisive because a lot of people will not support that particular party.

That does not make them divisive, necessarily. There are ceremonal presidents who are not necessarily from a political party, and in any case once someone becomes President (Like Prime minister) he or she is there for all the people. SInce Monarchs are usually from rich and aristocratic families, it can be said that they cannot really represent the poor and working class

 

[Futurist]

Exactly. A president, however popular they might be, and however nice they might be personally (probably not very, because "nice" people tend not to make it to the top of the political tree as they aren't ruthless enough), represents one political party, so they are essentially divisive because a lot of people will not support that particular party.

A president doesn't have to come from any political party. They can be a noted and/or accomplished figure instead, such as a scientist (Albert Einstein was offered Israel's Presidency in 1952, if I recall correctly, but he declined) or a writer or a poet. Just so long as the nation that asks them to serve as their president is proud of them, that really is all that matters.

 

[Futurist]

That does not make them divisive, necessarily. There are ceremonal presidents who are not necessarily from a political party, and in any case once someone becomes President (Like Prime minister) he or she is there for all the people. SInce Monarchs are usually from rich and aristocratic families, it can be said that they cannot really represent the poor and working class

Yeah, a country with a ceremonial president can theoretically invite a scientist or a poet or a writer to become its president. For instance, Israel offered Albert Einstein the opportunity to become its president in 1952, but he declined. So, Yeah, a country's ceremonial president doesn't necessarily have to have a prior political history. They could, but they are not obligated to do so. Heck, even a former royal could theoretically become a country's ceremonial president.

 

[Prinsara]

A president doesn't have to come from any political party. They can be a noted and/or accomplished figure instead, such as a scientist (Albert Einstein was offered Israel's Presidency in 1952, if I recall correctly, but he declined) or a writer or a poet. Just so long as the nation that asks them to serve as their president is proud of them, that really is all that matters.

A non-ceremonial, head of government-as-well-as-state president generally does.

And Israel 's last PM was nicknamed "King Bibi" for very good reasons and was just about as bad as any potentate in the end, so the fact there was a lovely, likable man as president at the same time didn't do bupkis about that.

 

[Curryong]

At least with elected officials like Presidents citizens (usually) know what to expect during their term of office. And that is so also with poets and writers who are appointed to such positions. They serve and then retire into private life. Whereas with a monarchy what citizens/subjects get for their lifetime is very much the result of a genetic lottery.

And short of revolution there is no real way of getting rid of a monarch. I’m not talking about downright disastrous monarchs, but unintelligent, deadly dull, under-performing, over-rated individuals who inherit a throne and therefore a job for life. Their population just has to put up with it and hope the next generation will be better. I think it’s pretty notable actually that no former monarchies’ populations are pleading for a return to the old days.

 

[BigLenny]

This article might explain why constitutional monarchies aren't the be-all-and-end-all government type in the world.

I'm no monarchist, but I still see the appeal of monarchies because in republics, the age-old mantra that we should continue trying to elect honest people for the job boils down to leaving everything up to chance. People have varying definitions on who is qualified that they often bicker over it. Not to mention that there are many instances of presidents stealing from their countries' treasuries for themselves. If you think that people fighting over power is part of the "beauty of republics", then you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Stefan]

. So, Yeah, a country's ceremonial president doesn't necessarily have to have a prior political history. They could, but they are not obligated to do so. Heck, even a former royal could theoretically become a country's ceremonial president.

Depends also how or by whom the President is elected. Heren in Germany the President is not elected by tge people but b a special Assembly who consits of all numbers of our Parlament and the same number of people send by the federal states.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Romania has the best system for 2021 as it actually closes the undeniable democratic gap: they have an elected president. At the same time, within the republican framework, the former Royal House is recognized and has a ceremonial and protocollary role in society.

This symbiosis of a Royal House inside a republic is no nouveauté: the United Provinces of the Netherlands (1588–1795) were formally a republic but they effectively had a Royal House functioning within the republican framework (the House of Orange-Nassau).

Picture: Princess Margareta adresses the Romanian Parliament. On the screen, in the republican Parliament: "H.M. Margareta, Custodian of the Romanian Crown". Note that the lecture still has the un-adapted republican Arms (uncrowned eagle as shield bearer) while the wall of the Chamber now depicts the newly adapted "royal" Arms (crowned eagle as shield bearer).

I would not mind my country (the Netherlands) becoming a republic, with a ceremonial and protocollary role for the former Royal House. In essence most monarchies in Europe are already ceremonial and protocollary anyway. It would take the angle out of the debate as hereditary succession simply is hard to defend anno 2021.

 

[Futurist]

Depends also how or by whom the President is elected. Heren in Germany the President is not elected by tge people but b a special Assembly who consits of all numbers of our Parlament and the same number of people send by the federal states.

The same is also true for Israel, FWIW. Israel's President is elected by its Knesset (parliament).

 

[Futurist]

Romania has the best system for 2021 as it actually closes the undeniable democratic gap: they have an elected president. At the same time, within the republican framework, the former Royal House is recognized and has a ceremonial and protocollary role in society.

This symbiosis of a Royal House inside a republic is no nouveauté: the United Provinces of the Netherlands (1588–1795) were formally a republic but they effectively had a Royal House functioning within the republican framework (the House of Orange-Nassau).

Picture: Princess Margareta adresses the Romanian Parliament. On the screen, in the republican Parliament: "H.M. Margareta, Custodian of the Romanian Crown". Note that the lecture still has the un-adapted republican Arms (uncrowned eagle as shield bearer) while the wall of the Chamber now depicts the newly adapted "royal" Arms (crowned eagle as shield bearer).

I would not mind my country (the Netherlands) becoming a republic, with a ceremonial and protocollary role for the former Royal House. In essence most monarchies in Europe are already ceremonial and protocollary anyway. It would take the angle out of the debate as hereditary succession simply is hard to defend anno 2021.

I wonder if it would have still been as easy for Romania to have such an arrangement if the other Hohenzollern branch would have also established a claim to the Romanian Kingship following King Michael's death. Then again, if such an arrangement would have been recognized while King Michael was still alive (and it might have very well been), then it would have been easier.

 

[BigLenny]

I really can’t see America becoming a monarchy at any moment. Not only is its government system rooted in rebellion against the prevailing system, but nowadays monarchy carries connotations of nepotism and privilege, which reeks of stagnation at best and regression at worst. Sure it’s fun to imagine a scenario where American Royals is a reality, but that comes across as wishful thinking that ignores the challenges real royals face. Even the abundance of various prominent families doesn’t help. Should America change its government type, I’d say it’ll go for a parliamentary republic instead.