Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

In your opinion, which European country is more likely to become a republic?

  • Belgium

    Votes: 82 19.9%
  • Denmark

    Votes: 12 2.9%
  • Great Britain

    Votes: 42 10.2%
  • Liechtenstein

    Votes: 12 2.9%
  • Luxembourg

    Votes: 10 2.4%
  • Monaco

    Votes: 16 3.9%
  • The Netherlands

    Votes: 4 1.0%
  • Norway

    Votes: 56 13.6%
  • Spain

    Votes: 149 36.1%
  • Sweden

    Votes: 30 7.3%

  • Total voters
    413
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous:
While I personally do respect and admire the Princes of Asturias, I wouldn't say they are all that popular in Spain. Their emergence as the only "clean" members of the Royal Family may have boosted the couple's popularity, but it's nowhere near the same regard King Juan Carlos enjoyed (and to a large extent still does, despite all the controversy and scandals).

I agree that the Spanish Monarchy is right now one of the most endangered ones.
 
Spain.

As the Inaki Urgandarin case unfolds, the Spanish RF is in a very precarious position, IMO. The only saving grace is the complete lack of evidence implicating Felipe's knowledge of the events, and the respect and popularity of Felipe and Letizia.

I think Spain is far more a Monarchy to watch for instability and problems than Sweden ever will be.
The whole situation of Spains future stability and economic concerns, as well as any Monarchy crisis or future trouble is yet to be secured or safe, but i don't think the current scandal of Duke Inaki Urgandarin is enough alone to cause a total Bourbon Monarchal crisis on its own.
This is not the legacy of King Juan Carlos, and would be devastating if it becomes the demise of the Spanish Monarchy, but i don't understand or know the implications and connection of this current scandal to Prince Felipe, either directly or even rumour?
 
Yup, I agree. I think Spain would probably be in line to abolish the monarchy. With everything going on over there it wouldnt surprise me at all. I think the monarchy has lost the respect of its people and with the economy the way it is there really is no reason to have one. Lets see what happens.
 
Yup, I agree. I think Spain would probably be in line to abolish the monarchy. With everything going on over there it wouldnt surprise me at all. I think the monarchy has lost the respect of its people and with the economy the way it is there really is no reason to have one. Lets see what happens.

And yet a newspaper I read today says that after his apology, King Juan Carlos has gained the respect of many of the spanish wjile the politicians are the ones that are losing their peoples respect. I don't know if the Spanish monarchy will survive after JC but economic troubles is not a reason to get rid of the monarchy.
 
Spanish Monarchy Not at Crisis Point!

And yet a newspaper I read today says that after his apology, King Juan Carlos has gained the respect of many of the spanish wjile the politicians are the ones that are losing their peoples respect. I don't know if the Spanish monarchy will survive after JC but economic troubles is not a reason to get rid of the monarchy.

I agree Fearghas, this was also my point, not that King Juan Carlos position at threat or in crisis as some other posts suggest (but don't support), just that Spain's Monarchy is an interesting one to watch in the longterm future as a more recent restored Monarchy and due to wider issues and the recent Duke Inaki scandal, etc.
King Juan Carlos's reign and part in the 70's democratic process and restoration of Spain's Monarchy, are the very reasons i see no crisis or immediate political and popular call for referendum or certainly not abolishment!
Only future decades can tell us the longterm future of Spain's Monarchy, but not this current EU related (not Monarchal!) economic crisis.
 
Yup, I agree. I think Spain would probably be in line to abolish the monarchy. With everything going on over there it wouldnt surprise me at all. I think the monarchy has lost the respect of its people and with the economy the way it is there really is no reason to have one. Lets see what happens.
Should we abolish the US presidency because the economy isn't doing great at the moment? :whistling:
 
Should we abolish the US presidency because the economy isn't doing great at the moment? :whistling:

No, but you can get rid of the President at next opportunity. Monarchies are stuck with the person in charge for possibly 60 years+
 
Plus, 'isn't doing great' is an enormous understatement. The Spanish state is on the brink of total bankruptcy. I hope it doesn't happen, but with unemployment so high and likely more and more austerity coming down the track to satisfy Germany, I can easily see social unrest in Spain. That could be dangerous given that democracy is not as mature in Spain as in most other European countries. What would happen to the position of the monarchy at that stage is anyone's guess.

This may be overly pessimistic but it's certainly not impossible.
 
Last edited:
I really think Spain has bigger fish to fry than what its form of government is. Abolishing the monarchy would do absolutely nothing, but I can see why such a move may be plausible.
 
No, but you can get rid of the President at next opportunity. Monarchies are stuck with the person in charge for possibly 60 years+

Which more often then not is a Blessing for that country,thank you!Instead of fraudulous start-up plebs...
 
Not every monarch is a blessing, like eg QEII, Beatrix or Juan Carlos have been during their long reign. Long term I think monarchies in general will go because they are undemocratic, what doesnt fit into modern thinking. Another question is the qualification for a powerless position. If you have a stupid heir, you will want to get rid of him, if you have an intelligent one, he wants to do more than spend his life ribbon cutting.
 
One remarkable thing for me is how people can be fascinated by royalty yet hostile towards the very idea of monarchy, even though monarchies have long proven better as a system of governance. Especially when we are in a polarised political environment, the role of the Crown is ever more important for the nations they serve.

If you think they are "undemocratic", what about the countless examples where monarchies overthrown were replaced by WORSE regimes? Like Communism and Nazism, for instance? Let's not forget that those two ideologies wrecked havoc on the 20th century, and we have still as humans not recovered or learned from it.

What about the fatal flaws of the political system in the US? It's not the best example of what democracy should be, is it?

What about the murderous regimes in Latin America like those of Argentina, Guatemala and El Salvador? All of those were republics. They killed thousands of their own people, even if it wasn't as many as Communism or Nazism, it was still bad.

Ignorance of modern history, I'm afraid, is too widespread.
 
The US system is not perfect but it's argued to be the closest to perfect a system on the planet; s system which was borrowed from the English. People are fascinated by a variety of things, war, violence, serial killers, yet that doesn't mean we want go get up close and personal with them.
Yes the US system is flawed just like the British system; anything created by people is going to have flaws.
The modern idea of government is choice, some choose monarchies others choose a President.
 
Last edited:
The US system is not perfect but it's argued to be the closest to perfect a system on the planet; s system which was borrowed from the English. People are fascinated by a variety of things, war, violence, serial killers, yet that doesn't mean we want go get up close and personal with them.
Yes the US system is flawed just like the British system; anything created by people is going to have flaws.
The modern idea of government is choice, some choose monarchies others choose a President.

I've never heard anyone say that the US system is the closest to perfect and would disagree profusely with such a statement, but that would be going to much off topic. I do agree though that at the end of the day its up to the people to choose between monarchy or republics.
 
I felt I really should respnd to the Duke of Marmalade's comment that a monarchy is undemocratic. I think this would be the case if the monarchy were absolute, but for the european monarchies, this is not the case and should be seen as another form of democracy. For example, Germany has a symbolic head of state as does Ireland, both are republics but the president of these countries perform much the same symbolic function as Queen Elizabeth, King Harald etc.
 
I felt I really should respnd to the Duke of Marmalade's comment that a monarchy is undemocratic. I think this would be the case if the monarchy were absolute, but for the european monarchies, this is not the case and should be seen as another form of democracy. For example, Germany has a symbolic head of state as does Ireland, both are republics but the president of these countries perform much the same symbolic function as Queen Elizabeth, King Harald etc.

In Germany, there have been ongoing discussions about the Head of State not being elected by the people. The last Bundespräsident, Christian Wulff, was chased out of his job because public opinion turned against him because of various scandals, despite him only being a symbolic figurehead and the public technically not having a say. Still it happened. Joachim Gauck, the current Bundespräsident, got the job because the majority of the people wanted him to represent Germany. Those who were in charge got the message and elected him.

To be precise: the tendency of people wanting to have a say in who will be their highest representative - symbolic or not - will be stronger and stronger in all countries. In that sense monarchies are undemocratic, the people of a country should and will have the right to be represented by a person of their choice. I am sure this will come and one of the main reasons why monarchies will go. Not in our lifetime, maybe not in this century, but I am sure it will come.
 
Monarchy and democracy are perfectly comfortable bedfellows. The simple fact of the matter is, down the centuries those monarchs who have lost the popular support of the people have been turfed out. The monarchies which remain have managed to do so by adapting to ensure that they retain the support of the majority of their people. In short, QEII is only monarch because it is the desire of the majority of the British population that she should have that role. Is that any less democratic that David Cameron being PM despite his party only winning 42% of the vote in an election where turnout was only around 60%?

This, though, is where republicans come in and say that the royals hire PR companies to make themselves look good; or the press connive with the monarchy to give it positive media converage. All this shows is the republicans view the majority of British people as stupid, empty headed sheep. Brendan O'Neill summed it up perfectly in the Telegraph recently:

Once upon a time, being a republican meant trusting in the people, seeing in the mass of society the potential for reason and self-governance. Now it means precisely the opposite: distrusting the people, sneering at them for being an easily brainwashable mob of forelock-tugging freaks.

They railed against the “infantile emotions” of the public, who apparently squeal: “Oh look here is the Queen! In yellow! In a hat!” They told us that “never are the peasants more revolting than when tugging their forelocks”. They informed us that certain groups of people – rough translation: the thick and uncultured – have been swallowed up by an “orgy of deference” to the Queen. And these thickos don't even understand that the Queen-oriented “cult of personality” has been sinisterly designed as a “diversion from more serious issues”, like the recession. What the dainty-minded ordinary people fundamentally don’t get, apparently, is that royal events like this are, in the words of a Mirror columnist, “magnificent pleb-pleasing distractions”, “psycho-spectacles” designed to make the “plebs” forget about their hardships. And the reason these plebs can so easily be made to forget that they are poor and wretched and downtrodden is because they have been “brainwashed on an Orwellian scale” into loving royalty.

Republicans seem unwilling to face facts. We have a monarchy because we want to have a monarchy. Directly electing a head of state might be more sensible; but human beings are not rational; we don't always want those things that are 'good for us' according to the elitist snobs who think they know best; we just want what we want.

One point on the US system. I think it was a quote in the West Wing, that any nation setting up a democratic state from scratch shouldn't even consider the US system as a template, mainly because of the power of the President (who I think can declare war unilaterally).
 
Monarchy and democracy are perfectly comfortable bedfellows. The simple fact of the matter is, down the centuries those monarchs who have lost the popular support of the people have been turfed out. The monarchies which remain have managed to do so by adapting to ensure that they retain the support of the majority of their people. In short, QEII is only monarch because it is the desire of the majority of the British population that she should have that role. Is that any less democratic that David Cameron being PM despite his party only winning 42% of the vote in an election where turnout was only around 60%?

Republicans seem unwilling to face facts. We have a monarchy because we want to have a monarchy. Directly electing a head of state might be more sensible; but human beings are not rational; we don't always want those things that are 'good for us' according to the elitist snobs who think they know best; we just want what we want.

.

Not necessarily. Its ok as long as the people support the current monarch, as its the case with QEII and many others. But as society evolves and a new generation of heirs comes up, there may come up the situation when the majority of people find their first representative useless or find a first representative who is a figurehead only useless. And then? They realize that they cant get rid of him or her. This is the moment that wont fit into a modern society or into the modern standard of democracy any longer, I am sure it will come in one or another country, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not in this century, but it will come.
 
In my opinion, the Spanish Royal Family is riding the Eurostar at full speed toward a cliff that would abolish them. The reasons is too long to list at this point, and it is unfortunate.
 
Padam as someone who doesn't know anything about the Spanish Royal Family do u mind giving at least a few reasons why you think they are heading towards being abolished? I believe I recall reading that the present King was recently reinstated after the monarchy had been previously abolished.
 
Padam as someone who doesn't know anything about the Spanish Royal Family do u mind giving at least a few reasons why you think they are heading towards being abolished? I believe I recall reading that the present King was recently reinstated after the monarchy had been previously abolished.
Well, I could name the most recent controversies:

- A corruption scandal that involves the King's son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarín, and most probably his daughter, Infanta Cristina, as well. In fact, the King himself is involved to a certain degree by trying to hush the scandal and protecting his daughter (who to this day hasn't been questioned). You can read more about that here.

- The hunting trip King Juan Carlos took, spending tens of thousands when his country is in economic crisis. Not to mention, he was hunting elephants; while it is not illegal where he was, it is morally a very dubious act. And people wouldn't even know about the trip, if the King hadn't suffered an accident requiring a hospitalisation. You can read more about that here.

- The fact King Juan Carlos was accompanied on that trip - and on many others, by the looks of it - by a woman who is believed to be his mistress. In fact, the King is believed to have numerous affairs throughout his marriage, which may explain why he and Queen Sofia decided not to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year.


In past, the Spanish media always protected the King and didn't report anything that could tarnish his reputation. That is slowly changing. Currently, only two members of the Royal Family are completely scandal free (to the best of my knowledge) - Crown Prince Felipe and Crown Princess Letizia. Queen Sofia's patience with her husband's ways has earned her a lot of sympathy and support as well.
 
One point on the US system. I think it was a quote in the West Wing, that any nation setting up a democratic state from scratch shouldn't even consider the US system as a template, mainly because of the power of the President (who I think can declare war unilaterally).

Only Congress can declare war. The US President can send in troops to anywhere the President wants, but the President must report to Congress within a set period (I believe 60 days, under the War Powers Act), and Congress can cut off funding. After Vietnam, and Lyndon Johnson's excesses, Congress clamped down on the President's warmaking powers, but this is a constant dispute between the President and Congress.

As an American, the only flaw I see is that the Head of State and Head of Government are combined in 1 job (the President), and we have a Vice President who doesn't really do anything; the VP is neither Head of State nor Head of Government and just casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate.
 
Not necessarily. Its ok as long as the people support the current monarch, as its the case with QEII and many others. But as society evolves and a new generation of heirs comes up, there may come up the situation when the majority of people find their first representative useless or find a first representative who is a figurehead only useless. And then? They realize that they cant get rid of him or her. This is the moment that wont fit into a modern society or into the modern standard of democracy any longer, I am sure it will come in one or another country, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not in this century, but it will come.

I disagree in the sense that a monarchy has a much more solid foundation, rooted as it is in a country's history. As such a monarchy has more inertia.
A head of state, elected or appointed, is based on that person's own character, morals and standing. And if it's a politician a segment of the population would per default never dream of voting for him/her to begin with.
A monachy is also based on a family. That means that there are more people to share the burden. If some members of the family have issues, there will almost inevitable be others who are rolemodels.
Then there is the matter of people relating to different members of that family. Some people may dislike the monarch, but admire another member of the family.
In other words, within an RF there are almost always someone you can dislike or admire.
Finally but certainly not least, there is the matter of nationalism. A head of state who will be around for a few years, no matter how competent he/she is, can't be compared to a family who has been around for centuries.
Don't dismiss the "royal-soap-opera-effect".
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Its ok as long as the people support the current monarch, as its the case with QEII and many others. But as society evolves and a new generation of heirs comes up, there may come up the situation when the majority of people find their first representative useless or find a first representative who is a figurehead only useless. And then? They realize that they cant get rid of him or her. This is the moment that wont fit into a modern society or into the modern standard of democracy any longer, I am sure it will come in one or another country, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not in this century, but it will come.

But of course we can get rid of a monarch who doesn't garner the support of the majority of the population. It's happened before - we cut one's head off (Charles II), we chased one off by importing an alternative from another country (James VII), the government and the Church pushed one out when they didn't like his choice of wife (Edward VIII).

The British people have shown themselves perfectly capable of kicking out a monarch they don't fancy; we've even had a go at a republic but we didn't much care for it. The press and the politicians merely reflect the overall feeling among the public; so because the RF retain the support of c.80% of the population, no newspaper (apart from some of the leftie broadsheets) or mainstream political party supports a republic. But if that were to change; if some future monarch were to act in such a manner as to seriously anger the people, the press would start up the sort of bandwagon we saw in the week of Diana's death, and of course no politician ever saw a bandwagon they didn't want to jump on at the earliest opportunity.

When the British press and commentariat, along with politicians and public representatives, decide they're out to get someone, they pretty much always get their way. This would be no different if it concerns the monarch or (much more regularly) the England football manager.
 
Actually, as your monarchs do nothing substantive to or for the government, their private lives have little bearing on how the government works. Charles the II was a long time ago and bringing in James, whose big sin was becoming Catholic, also a long time ago, is not relevant. Eward the VII, had dozens of mistresses, in fact his favorite was Camilla's grandmother. But Edward, faults and all was popular, so he stayed. Jump forward to the present day, you have a very dedicated woman who has done her best in this job, but the world doesn't sink or swim on her opinions and she has had and still has some dubious relatives, whom the country will inherit. No one is chopping off heads.
 
But of course we can get rid of a monarch who doesn't garner the support of the majority of the population. It's happened before - we cut one's head off (Charles II), we chased one off by importing an alternative from another country (James VII), the government and the Church pushed one out when they didn't like his choice of wife (Edward VIII).

Very true. Royalty, just like any other public figure or even the politicians they appoint to government, are accountable to the court of public opinion. In my view members of Royal Houses are more accountable than political figures as they must constantly justify themselves to their people as opposed to politicians who usually just get into power and then plod along until they are voted out or retire.
 
Well, I could name the most recent controversies:

- A corruption scandal that involves the King's son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarín, and most probably his daughter, Infanta Cristina, as well. In fact, the King himself is involved to a certain degree by trying to hush the scandal and protecting his daughter (who to this day hasn't been questioned). You can read more about that here.

- The hunting trip King Juan Carlos took, spending tens of thousands when his country is in economic crisis. Not to mention, he was hunting elephants; while it is not illegal where he was, it is morally a very dubious act. And people wouldn't even know about the trip, if the King hadn't suffered an accident requiring a hospitalisation. You can read more about that here.

- The fact King Juan Carlos was accompanied on that trip - and on many others, by the looks of it - by a woman who is believed to be his mistress. In fact, the King is believed to have numerous affairs throughout his marriage, which may explain why he and Queen Sofia decided not to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year.


In past, the Spanish media always protected the King and didn't report anything that could tarnish his reputation. That is slowly changing. Currently, only two members of the Royal Family are completely scandal free (to the best of my knowledge) - Crown Prince Felipe and Crown Princess Letizia. Queen Sofia's patience with her husband's ways has earned her a lot of sympathy and support as well.

If the Spanish monarchy goes or not will depend on Felipe, Leonor etc. not on recent scandals.

Whatever scandals there were, Inaki & Cristina may tarnish the image of the SRF but it wont touch Felipe's suitablitiy as King. Juan Carlos has done the maximum for Spain, with respect to abolishment his persona will be untouchable until he dies.

It will depend on Felipe and how he creates his reign whether the Spanish people will be comfortable with him or not or see any sense in continuing with the institution. I have no doubt Felipe will reign but I am not sure Leonor or her offsprings will.
 
I believe the biggest threat to the European monarchies is not the public opinion, unless the royals do something extremely stupid, like being involved in serious crime, corruption or directly and repeatedly interferring with politics. It's the abolishment of the national state that is the biggets threat.

The royals are linked to the individual nations by being living national symbols.
When, not if, the relevance of the national state has diminished enough then the royal families cease to be of particular importance as well. By then they will be reduced to celebrities.

More and more people get an education in, live, work and eventually die in different countries throughout their lives. They marry different nationalities, have children who most often don't see themselves as 100 % belonging to one nation.
They again move around and marry someone of another nationality and have children whose adherance to a particular country become even more tenous.

After a while the national states will be reduced to geographical reference points, administrative areas with an ever increasing national and ethnic mix among the population.
The national state will go first, then the royals.

Example: Germany anno 1812 consisted of a multitude of nations, principalities and city states. Many if not most had been around for centuries.
In 1912 there were three or four left, all de facto under an overlord, i.e. the Kaiser.
2012. None are left.
I believe this is what is going to happen with the monarchies in Europe. Not because people wish to abolish them, but because they quietly cease to fulfill their most important function: being national symbols.

I know, I know, there is a setback right now, perhaps even a major crisis - but people still move around.
And Europe has to unite in order to be able to compete on the world markets.

Then there is the British example. With the British monarch being head of state for a number of nation in a commonwealth.
At present the British monarch is head of state of a number of nations who are mainly very similar ethnic and cultural and share a long common history.
But as the biggest of these countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada develope their own culture, get more diverse ethnically not to mention the national identity, which is very well developed in all three countries, there will be an ever increasing call for being represented by their own head of state.
150 years ago one solution might have been to adopt a secondary British prince and make him king, nowadays republics are more likely.
So the British monarchy will, I believe, eventually also become irelevant.

When royals get reduced to cebrities rather than national symbols, they lose their magic.

Fortunately I won't live to see my prediction being fulfilled.
 
Last edited:
Then there is the British example. With the British monarch being head of state for a number of nation in a commonwealth.
At present the British monarch is head of state of a number of nations who are mainly very similar ethnic and cultural and share a long common history.
But as the biggest of these countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada develope their own culture, get more diverse ethnically not to mention the national identity, which is very well developed in all three countries, there will be an ever increasing call for being represented by their own head of state.
150 years ago one solution might have been to adopt a secondary British prince and make him king, nowadays republics are more likely.
So the British monarchy will, I believe, eventually also become irelevant.

There have been continuous calls for Australia to become a republic since the idea of an Australian Federation was first floated in the late 1880's. And here we are in 2012 celebrating the 60 glorious years that have been the reign of Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. While Australia has most certainly got much more ethnically diverse and its own national identity and is no longer the outpost of the British Empire in the far edge of it does not mean that we have any incentive to become a republic. If anything, calls for a republic are growing fewer as the years go by. Australia may have a different identity but the British Monarchy is part of our DNA - thousands of our young men and women shed their blood for the Crown over many years; we have an affection fort the Queen and her family that runs far, far deeper than that for any celebrity or public figure; and we have had over a century of stable government with a Governor-General replicating the Queen's steady hand on the ship of state (with one notable exception, although it didn't do much damage long-term). In hindsight I wish Queen Victoria did send one of her sons out in 1901 to be the first King of Australia but she didn't, and it hasn't made one iota of difference to Australia's relationship to its monarch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom