The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-26-2014, 03:05 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 2,273
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:
__________________

__________________
Acclamation Manuel II of Portugal: 6 May 1908
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-31-2014, 10:44 AM
DukeJonathan81's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 61
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
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:00 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,549
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.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:01 AM
DukeJonathan81's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-31-2014, 12:52 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Somewhere in time, Canada
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-31-2014, 12:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Somewhere in time, Canada
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeJonathan81 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-08-2015, 09:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,593
From CNBC

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-21-2018, 03:32 PM
nisreen's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 262
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
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-21-2018, 03:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,926
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-21-2018, 04:30 PM
nisreen's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 262
But if they spend all that money on fashion ,jewellery and other things why raising donations from ordinary people?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-21-2018, 07:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,929
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-04-2018, 07:51 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-04-2018, 08:29 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 19,853
I suppose we in monarchies are stuck with prime ministers, which potentially are of the same calibre .
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-04-2018, 08:26 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 7,875
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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-04-2018, 08:37 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 166
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-04-2018, 09:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan D View Post
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 .
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-04-2018, 09:51 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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'.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-05-2018, 12:43 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 51
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
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-05-2018, 01:48 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1462 09-09-2018 08:00 AM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 311 08-20-2018 05:42 PM




Popular Tags
antony armstrong-jones archduchess marie astrid book british royal family britishroyals camilla canada ceremony clothes current events duchessofsussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of york emma england fashion gordon grand duchess maria teresa hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hereditary prince alois hohenzollern infanta cristina interests juan carlos kate middleton king willem-alexander ladies-in-waiting letizia liechtenstein meghan markle monaco nobel 2017 porphyria prince charles prince harry prince harry of wales prince jean prince sebastian princess princess alexandra of luxembourg princess beatrice princess claire princess claire of luxembourg princess eugenie public image pyrmont queen elisabeth queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding sarah duchess of york state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family tiara tom bower tony armstrong-jones visit from spain waldeck wedding windsor windsor castle wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises