Which Country Could Become A Monarchy?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What makes you think a republic is cheaper? Presidents receive salaries and life pensions. Security needs to be in place for Presidents and their families, even after they leave office, There is the cost of elections every 4 or 5 years. Official residences need to me maintained. Staff has to be paid for. Official travel needs to be paid for. We know for instance that the costs of the presidencies of Germany and Italy both exceed those of the British monarchy. I dont see how a monarchy would be more expensive, in fact it may even be cheaper since there would be no elections and no pensions for a monarch.

Oh, presidencies are not cheap. But they are people, who have worked hard to reach a goal. They weren't born to the "manor" so to speak. First of all, the British Monarachy costs a fortune, always played downed and dwindled into some bizzare figures, that belie the living arrangements of the family. Remember, they, believe, that all the land, jewels and other accoutremounts, are theirs, because they were born into it. Do you think the queen pays for travel for business. Do you think she packs a bag or gets on a commercial plane or does anything remotely necessary to cuts costs. And then she goes and skes hands. Her Prime Minister is reponsible for government. It is live theatre. Each of these nations, Italy, Germany, etc. have Prime Minsters and, actual, pepople, who, really, run the government, that work, put the behinds on the line for good or bad. There are great costs to that, besides other costs that keep a monarch in the style to which they are accustomed. They travel and live, too and are paid, too. So do the British have Prime Ministers, who get paid and travel. So, besides keeping a monarchy, they pay for a "real" government. Double. No one counts that.
 
Oh, presidencies are not cheap. But they are people, who have worked hard to reach a goal. They weren't born to the "manor" so to speak. First of all, the British Monarachy costs a fortune, always played downed and dwindled into some bizzare figures, that belie the living arrangements of the family. Remember, they, believe, that all the land, jewels and other accoutremounts, are theirs, because they were born into it. Do you think the queen pays for travel for business. Do you think she packs a bag or gets on a commercial plane or does anything remotely necessary to cuts costs. And then she goes and skes hands. Her Prime Minister is reponsible for government. It is live theatre. Each of these nations, Italy, Germany, etc. have Prime Minsters and, actual, pepople, who, really, run the government, that work, put the behinds on the line for good or bad. There are great costs to that, besides other costs that keep a monarch in the style to which they are accustomed. They travel and live, too and are paid, too. So do the British have Prime Ministers, who get paid and travel. So, besides keeping a monarchy, they pay for a "real" government. Double. No one counts that.

:previous:
Yes, but as NGalitzine stated before "We know for instance that the costs of the presidencies of Germany and Italy both exceed those of the British monarchy." Italy and Germany both have 'double acts' so to speak as well, but in republican form.

I don't have straight numbers for you at the moment but the US presidency (a 'single act') -- which covers pension, travel, security for life (not for Bush 43 and successors), etc. for former presidents and their spouses and the same plus more for the current president and his family -- is at least equal to the British monarchy. A bit expensive for just one, no?
 
The BRF expenses are heavily scrutinised and the annual cost per head of population is 62p. These are audited figures, and cover the costs of running the offices and travel for the Queen and 9 member of the RF. Value for money. The Queen has not received at increase in the money available for over 5 years.


These figures do not include the cost of the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and his sons and daughter in law. These costs are met via income from the Duchy of Cornwall which is private income. He pays tax on that income.

TRF pay for all the upkeep on their private residences but not Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

There is no royal train, no royal yacht, no fleet of aeroplanes - all gone.

It's not the Queen who hasn't moved with the times!
 
Sorry Countess, but if you seriously imagine that the Queen believes she has a right to an extravagant and pampered lifestyle, then you clearly know nothing of the personality and moral beliefs of our Queen.
 
Last edited:
It is not the queen, per se, who likes to lead an extravagant lifestyle. She is, truly, a modest woman. But she does just the same. She did cry, one of the few times, in public, when the Britannia was removed. And, do think about the many years they paid taxes on nothing. Their fortunes have been amassed while the little guy forked over his fair share. The Duchy of Cornwall is Charles', because it was given to him. He didn't purchase it with earned income. And only recently did they start picking up the tab on private residences, of which they have a few. Trust me, they give tourist value, but you still pay a "real" working government, Prime Minister, his home, and others. the pensions our presidents get are not that high, as their salaries are not that high and many donate those salaries and do not keep them. Plus they work, they do not cut ribbons and taste cake at Fortnum and Mason for the days out. The buck stops at their desks, they go in looking young and come out looking tired.
 
Repulic - v - Monarchy.

Sorry Countess, but if you seriously imagine that the Queen believes she has a right to an extravagant and pampered lifestyle, then you clearly know nothing of the personality and moral beliefs of our Queen.

Yes absolutely, re HM Queen Elizabeth's modesty, and her long service of hard work and endless schedule, commitment and duty to the nation!
How certain posts and Republicans constantly argue and bang on about the costs of Monarchy is a dead argument!
This round-in-circles repetitive point about Monarchies costing the State two leadership salaries and expenses is not valid, and for most Monarchists its not the point anyway.
Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Chancellors, and Prime Ministers cost several high leadership salaries and expenses too!!
 
Last edited:
Futile arguments.

The issue of costs will always figure in any debate on restoration. Those opposed to such moves in Romania, for instance, will always seek to make the case that restoring King Michael to the throne, would be a greater burden on the national purse, than maintaining the present white-collar president, or any of his predecessors. A ludicrous argument, when one thinks of the extravagance of the communist " King " Ceaucescu and his appalling wife. Unfortunately, it is an argument that still has some sway in Romania, and it is rather disappointing to hear similar carping, on forums such as these. Ultimately, the restoration of a monarchy should be determined by principles, ethics and righteousness. It should not be determined by Pounds, Shillings and Pence.
 
Restoration Principles.

Exactly my earlier point too, Monarchy and Restoration is not just simply an issue or argument of cost re Monarchy-v-Republic.
Although that argument has been made very well already by the often huge costs of Presidents, Premiers, and Prime Ministers costs and expenses! Also dual costs!
Monarchists reasoning and arguments for restoration are about far more than nit-picking about budgets and finance.
 
Last edited:
From Abolition to Restoration.

This excellent BBC News Magazine article on recently abolished Royals, and more about recently returned and restored or restituted Royals and Monarchies was sent to me today.
It is very topical and relevant to our recent posts and this thread in general.

WHAT DO MONARCHS DO NEXT?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7426349.stm
 
Last edited:
If some nation wants to restore a monarch and the people agree. Have at it. In, today's world it is anachronistic, but so many nations emerging from difficult pasts might view this as fine. They have had hard time having any functioning government, so who knows. It is still a double expense, unless you have an absolute monarch.
 
The case for the Monarchists.

Again, and i know its getting repetitive, this Republican argument about the cost of two leaderships with Monarchies is challenged and argued by us Monarchists as many or most Republics have the two-tier dual costs of their various Presidents, Premiers, Chancellors, and Prime Ministers, plus associated departments of protocol and diplomacy instead of Monarchy!
And again, for Monarchists it is far from simply an argument about costs and budgets.
Monarchists believe in the many other cases and issues for Monarchy, about traditions, history and heritage, National identity and sovereignty, society and continuity.
The many returned and restituted former exiled Royals and Monarchies make this case very recently, and ongoing.
 
Last edited:
Restitution and Returning Sultans in Indonesia.

Another recent and interesting case of returned and restituted former Monarchies are the various Sultanates in Indonesia.
Some of these are - The Sultanates of Achin, Palembang, Siak, Singosari, Demak, Bantam, Mataram, Jogjakarta, Surakarta - in Sumatra & Java, and other Islands of Indonesia.
Many of these returned Sultans are being widely welcomed back with popular and official support, with positions and roles of status, Government acknowledgment and restitution.

An excellent magazine article on some of these returned Sultans, and well worth reading for those of us interested in and in support of restitution and restoration (and those who are against it too!) of former Monarchies, is -

Return of the sultans - Inside Indonesia - a quarterly magazine on Indonesia and its people, culture, politics, economy and environment
 
It won't work the second time around. The days of grandeur are gone.
 
Days of Grandeur!

It won't work the second time around. The days of grandeur are gone.

Many former Monarchs and Royals have returned to their nations in recent decades, by popular appeal and official restitution, without expecting, wanting, or receiving, anything like the lifestyles or costs of those former "Days of Grandeur"!
Not always full restoration, but very often welcome restitution.
 
The Grandeur of Republics

It won't work the second time around. The days of grandeur are gone.
The days of Grandeur most certainly are over, one only has to look at the present position of the Greek Republic, to understand that.
 
To re-establish a monarchy is tp say we cannot form a functioning government. You are right James VI.
 
To re-establish a monarchy is tp say we cannot form a functioning government. You are right James VI.
Sorry Countess, the Grandiosity that i was refering to is that of the republics which replaced the Monarchies of Greece, Romania, Serbia etc. These republics claimed to be more egalitarian and democratic, yet their legacies are quite the opposite. The claim that a President can do better than a constitutional Monarch is one piece of grandiosity which has been well and truly scorched, in the Balkans at least
 
One of the "arguments" presented by the republicans...or simply anti-monarchists, is that "if a president is not suitable, not desirable for his job, we change him in the elections after 4-5 years, but if we have a monarch and he/she's not suitable for this, what do we do, we are stuck with him for good!"
I wanted to ask those of you who live in a monarchy, or who know these things, constitutional issues, what happens if the monarch doesn't follow the constitution and has an abnormal behaviour for his role?
In my country for example, the president is suspended by the Parliament and then sent to the people's choice in a referendum to be dismissed.
I cannot imagine that in a monarchy things would stand different.
 
I would really like to see someone like King Michael of Romania restored, the Romanian people are fond of him and his daughter, the sad thing is not many like the fact he changed the succession rules to allow Princess Margarita to ascend the headship of the house upon Michael's death.

As much as I would like to see a Hohenzollern on the German Imperial throne again, I think Germany is too disorganized to bring back the royals in a official role.

I think if Maria of Russia had the support of the whole Romanov clan she could get enough support in Russia for some sort of semi-official role. Maybe her son George Mikhailovich can muster some support after she is gone?
 
i hope Hawaii that would be wonderful but i don't know if any of their family members r still alive
 
I cannot seriouly imagine Hawaii seceding from the union in order to establish a monarchy. Hawaiians are a minority in their own state so are unlikley to carry a majority vote. There are numerous remaining members of branches of the former ruling family around, some have been active in public life and are quite wealthy.
 
I'd think that all of the events in the UK (Jubilee, Royal Wedding, etc.) would be a great advertisement for monarchy, showing people that it's a good thing in many ways.
 
It won't work the second time around. The days of grandeur are gone.

It's not just about the grandeur - it's about the increased political stability and the increased feeling of national pride and togetherness that comes from monarchies. In the recent BBC documentary on Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee, the presenter said something along the lines of "The State needs to be something that everyone can believe in even when you disagree with the government" and no other system does this apart from monarchy. There are many states in Europe that used to be monarchies that could really do with having a steady, impartial figure who personifies the nation at the top during times of crisis - Greece in particular. You also only need to look at how the UN's Human Development Index is dominated by constitutional monarchies - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Spain, Belgium - to see the benefits that this system provides.

And re-establishing a monarchy does not imply a failure at forming a functioning government, it is simply a much needed and beneficial improvement to a system that may or may not already be flawed.
 
Last edited:
In my view, it's not just a case of monarchy vs republic. Some countries have very strong cultural leanings towards a certain system of governance. China is a prime example - it depends on an autocratic regime whether communist or absolute monarchy. Russia has always been led by one person and hasn't done badly. That's because I think some countries just lean towards dictatorship (maybe because of their size too) whereas others prefer a series of leaders, others work better with a traditional hereditary head of state. It's very individual.
 
In my view, it's not just a case of monarchy vs republic. Some countries have very strong cultural leanings towards a certain system of governance. China is a prime example - it depends on an autocratic regime whether communist or absolute monarchy. Russia has always been led by one person and hasn't done badly. That's because I think some countries just lean towards dictatorship (maybe because of their size too) whereas others prefer a series of leaders, others work better with a traditional hereditary head of state. It's very individual.

But surely one could also argue that although a country naturally gravitates towards a certain form of government that does not mean it provides the best result for that country. Germany until WWII is an example - it had traditionally been ruled by someone with (virtually) absolute power and the failure of the Weimar republic in adequately filling the power vacuum that existed after the First World War meant that Hitler was widely supported for several years as he amassed total control of Germany, which ultimately led to disaster. If Germany was not defeated unconditionally and occupied by the Allies I doubt a republic in the true sense of the word would have eventuated and allowed the economic miracles of the second half of the 20th century to occur.
 
Serbia is interesting,not sure if anything will happen but I'm keeping an open mind with regard to Serbia.
Me too.
Most major political parties and the Church support Crown Prince Alexander, the Serbian royals are now very integrated with the daily life of the country; it would take only a small push for the Monarchy to be reinstated. The problem is, the country faces far more prevailing issues right now to actually think of restoration.
 
Back
Top Bottom