The Value of the Monarchy

[Catherine J]

Last weekend, around our weekly neighbourhood campfire, I found myself across from an anti-monarchist. Naturally, we began a lively discussion.

I am wondering, simply, why do you believe/disbelieve in the value of the Monarchy and can you quantify that sense of value/no value.

My answer is fairly straightforward. Primarily I like the idea of an apolitical Head of State whose main purpose is to "ensure the welfare" of their people - by way of interaction with the elected government and acts of public service, charity, comfort and support. I like that in times of crisis or jubilation people can come together under that HoS regardless of personal politics under the unifying principal of "nationality". I like that it enforces a system, however weighted down it might be with protocol, whereby we are reminded of the importance of respect. In exchange for "having our backs", we show respect.

I like the continuity. I have watched Prince William grow up (my eldest child is the same age as William and my youngest is the same age as Harry) and I feel like I *know* him, in the sense that I have had a chance to witness his character and sense of duty. I feel like I *know* Charles, he has been a fixture in my life as long as I can remember and I feel confident in his character. Here they are and here they will stay and it is a thing to count upon in a world that is ... transient.

What say you? Are you for or against (a Monarchy)? Why?

[Catherine J]

Requisite small talk: [After a year and a half, I have just discovered the profile page (!), realized "thanks" come to that page (!!) and figured how to start a thread. Yay me. Ahem. My intellect is an astounding thing, no?]

My answer to the actual thread is in the original post.

[Mariel]

Monarchy is to be respected if and when it acts respectable. Sometimes it doesn't. I presume various people would have different standards of what is respectable or admirable. Being here on the forum for a few months, and reading a lot here, I see people in royal families whom I admire and find very valuable, and at the other end, people who are disgraceful in their behavior. So I can't give an overall "pass" to monarchies. They seem to be very different among the group presented here on the Royal Forums.

But they do also have the value of entertaining us with their lovely clothing, jewels, and gracious traditional ceremonies.

[Jacknch]

Most Monarchs have, in my opinion, acted with a great deal of respectability as well as most of the heirs to the thrones. It's some of the other royals you have to be watchful of who have acted disgracefully at times!
A respectable president has my admiration too, especially the non-political ones such as the Icelandic or Irish presidents and the lovely Mrs Halonen the former president of Finland.
I favour less the political presidencies because by the very nature of being political, as a head of state they cannot properly represent their people and therefore hold less value in my mind.
To me, a head of state is the human embodiement and symbol of a nation, representative of the people and focus for the nation in good times and bad (kind of like a human form of a flag such as the stars and stripes). It's an old fashioned idea, but I do like the idea of a mother or father of the nation!

[nwinther]

For - definitily!

I am for for a number of reasons.

The most important one is the superiority of monarchies, which I see as stability, continuity, community.

While a monarchy must never take despotic form, it is superior to republics for the reasons stated above. Unlike the president, the king must look ahead, because he has something at stake when he isn't king anymore. This stake is his eldest son - the future king. The president will have noone to answer to, once he's on his final run. This is an enormous temptation towards corruption in the republic.

Also, the posibility for actual reform is harder in a republic, as the head of state is dependent on the bureaucracy (for votes) - or is indifferent, at it won't matter when the HoS has left office - why help the substitute?

Also, the long-term responsible behaviour is non-existent in a republic. The monarch must be responsible - also in the long term - for the reasons stated above.

Another matter is the capability of a president. The guy who becomes HoS in a republic is in no way the man who is better at the job. It is solely the man able to drum up more votes.

Then there's the legitimacy of it all.
In a republic, large parts of the population will be against the president - they voted for the other guy. In a monarchy, this is not the case and as such, the monarch is everyone's monarch.

[Konigsplein]

Also, there's always this video:

[Princess Pillow]

Because it is a great base to operate in when delving into history, I support the monarchy. I don’t believe elected leaders are as good for historical study. Then their history isn’t as ancient either another complaint is they are constantly changing. So, I am for the monarchy, as for historical study.
It is a pleasure to read some of the other posts for it, giving me greater perceptive, and understanding. Thanks everyone.