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.
UK and Spain. Just my personal feeling, the British monarchy will have it very hard after Queen Elizabeth II, she is loved and respected, but I don't think Charles will recieve the same support. Spain for the very same reason, with all the negative coverage towards Letizia, I think Felipe will have it very rough once he becomes king.
 
NORWAY! They do not like MM! I know many Norwegians who told me that after the actual King, a trend wants to organize referendum, in order to abolish Monarchy.
 
I doubt any of them will change because lessons have been learned from the past as to how a change of a system of government has been profoundly destabilising in modern European history.
 
I think the first one to go will open a floodgate for others to follow. The idea of monarchy is from the old ages, these days people want to elect - get rid of their Head of State to their own taste.

Kings and Queens are expensive representatives without any power - why keep them when even the bar is continuously being lowered when it comes to moral standards etc etc, making the constituition look like any ordinary citizen with the only difference that the public has to foot the bill.

I think that Belgium is probably the first to go, followed by Norway, Spain, Sweden. The British, Dutch and Danes will be the last ones standing.

All this might certainly not happen in our lifetime but the erosion has already begun, eg by choice of spouses or not being up to scratch regarding the inherited task.

While I believe that all heirs will get to reign, I am not sure about their children. While most countries will fight tooth and nail to keep their advantages and privileges, especially in Norway I could imagine that Haakom will once be the King of active transition into a republic in case a referendum will be asking for it.
 
Countries like Denmark, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, etc it's hard to imagine them without their monarchies, as it very much defines what these countries are. We are also in times where many people feel the need for a rallying point, above the cloak and dagger of politics, because they are far from certain times.

In all functioning democracies, elections for any office costs money. A cost that is higher in many developing democracies too. I've stated before that anybody who believes a republic automatically equates to greater equality and democracy is kidding themselves. Because there are numerous republics, as with numerous monarchies, although none of those in Europe admittedly, that are far from being such.
 
I think the first one to go will open a floodgate for others to follow.
[...]
While I believe that all heirs will get to reign, I am not sure about their children.
Actually I agree with you here. I guess that's how it will be one day. After the first monarchy is gone there will follow others pretty soon.
I'm also quite sure we'll see the current heirs on the throne... maybe also some of their children... but it will be hard for the generation afterwards.
My guess would be that Sweden or Belgium will be the first monarchies that will go; followed by Spain and Norway. Denmark and the UK will probably last longest. I could imagine that one day the Royal families will be like the Greek Royal family (just without the exile - private former Royal families.
 
I certainly don't think that all monarchies will remain but it bears repeating that after WWI everyone thought ALL monarchies would be gone and yet they still remain.

With the world in constant turmoil in regards to poverty, a politicized electorate in MANY countries, the royal families serve for many a constant source of history and tradition. I think they will evolve as history dictates but I don't think that all of them will go.

And its always interesting how people (not to be disrespectful) talk about how certain royals in another country will be the downfall of it....but never no one from that particular country. Its like people in democracies know more about how the Dutch monarchy is perceived (for example) than the Dutch:whistling:
 
With the world in constant turmoil in regards to poverty, a politicized electorate in MANY countries, the royal families serve for many a constant source of history and tradition. I think they will evolve as history dictates but I don't think that all of them will go.

I agree - some as the British and Danish have been around for many centuries and people dont remember the country in a different form of government as constitutional monarchy but some, like Norway, Sweden or especially Spain don't have much of a recent history at all. All countries can well do without a monarch, have done so in the past, and therefore the public is less attached to them or will look for alternatives if the Royal Family doesnt fit into expectations any longer.

As a consequence, especially in Spain they try to look as busy and important as possible, with huge agendas, hidden holidays etc because if the public gets annoyed with their demeanor they will be gone very fast, it has been done before.

Besides, I think that all future heirs, no matter what country, will have to accept a cutback on the privileges that their parents have enjoyed for years, starting back in those times when the yellow press of today didnt exist and the public was still paralyzed out of respect for the monarchy.

IMO especially Felipe of Spain and Prince Charles will have a hard time as King, they will be under extreme pressure and scrutiny by the media and the public regarding their personal or political conduct and monetary issues.
 
I don't think British monarchy will go that easily. Same with the Danish, Dutch and Luxembourg. Now Spain and Norway I see many people who are losing interest in them. In Spain people are very Juancarlistas, even with Letizia there it hasn't change that much IMO. If only could Elena become Queen!
 
Greece, France and Italy 'again' are more likely than another state in Europe to become a 'new' republic.
 
Will the restitution of the monarchy be the cure for an economic crisis there? I doubt it
 
Long live Constitutional monarchy!

I pray NONE of these nations lose their monarchies; they are part of the nations' culture and legacy. I can just think of Anatole France's PERFECT ANSWER......"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free."
 
Sweden - no power for the monarch, so what's the sense of holding the monarchy?
More and more Swedes want to abolish it.
 
Well... the monarchy is something that belongs to the culture and tradition of a country.
Almost all of these current monarchies are just..."something" (i'm not finding the right word in english) that adorn, decorate the country. The kings and queens or whoever reigning monarch don't have the absolute power to rule the country. Actually, just a few do rule the country. Now these nations that have monarchs have presidents too.

And, of all of these monarchies, i think that Spain is the one most likely to become a republic again. Or at least that is what a majority of spanish people wants. They like King JC and Queen Sofia but i know a lot, a lot of people that hate Felipe and not even want to hear the name "Letizia". There are lot of people that, i'm almost sure, won't let Letizia be the queen. Or at least, they won't agree with it.
Besides, there's a lot of political problems going on there.

And the other monarchy, it might be Sweden. Sure, they love Victoria and Silvia, and Carl Gustaf, but if Carl Philp is going to marry to that girl Sofia, and it's going to spend the people's money on her...well, i think you get the point, they won't like that at all.
 
I don't think British monarchy will go that easily. Same with the Danish, Dutch and Luxembourg. Now Spain and Norway I see many people who are losing interest in them. In Spain people are very Juancarlistas, even with Letizia there it hasn't change that much IMO. If only could Elena become Queen!
What could Infanta Elena change? She appears to be a fine individual, good mother. However, I do not think she enjoys higher popularity ratings than Prince and Princess Asturias.
I agree - some as the British and Danish have been around for many centuries and people dont remember the country in a different form of government as constitutional monarchy but some, like Norway, Sweden or especially Spain don't have much of a recent history at all. All countries can well do without a monarch, have done so in the past, and therefore the public is less attached to them or will look for alternatives if the Royal Family doesnt fit into expectations any longer.

As a consequence, especially in Spain they try to look as busy and important as possible, with huge agendas, hidden holidays etc because if the public gets annoyed with their demeanor they will be gone very fast, it has been done before. ... [snipped]
I fully agree with your opinion. Almost all monarchies exert every effort to show their relevance and importance. Such fuss might be perceived as disingenuous. The current generation of pragmatics tend to be tired of shows and just go directly to comparisons and costs of having the royal family.
 
Now these nations that have monarchs have presidents too.
Monarchies don't have presidents, republics do. But most (if not all) modern monarchies in Europe have prime ministers.

Nathelie Cox said:
And the other monarchy, it might be Sweden. Sure, they love Victoria and Silvia, and Carl Gustaf, but if Carl Philp is going to marry to that girl Sofia, and it's going to spend the people's money on her...well, i think you get the point, they won't like that at all.
No, I don't get the point at all. I don't know how popular Sofia is (she doesn't make public appearances yet), but if anything, I say it's the family's treatment of her, that would annoy people, not anything she has done.
 
I think the Spanish monarchy is as safe as houses, to be honest.

According to a poll relased earlier this year, 75% of Spanish citizens place the Spanish monarchy above all others government institutions. Also, the king is widely considered one of the top ten most popular public figures... and he is rather a boaring public speaker himself.
 
Northern Ireland, I don't understand why they can't unify the country. I'm sure the Roman Catholic and Protestants could find a way to get along.
 
Despite all the hype prior to the wedding, support for Monarchy in Sweden has dipped below 60%. I wouldn't be surprised it that's changed now that the weddings over, but still if things don't turn around, I don't think the futures bright there.
I don't think that right now the situation is bad for the Swedish monarchy, even if the support appears to be low in polls. I was thinking about the abolished monarchies in Europe and I came to the conclusion that , abolishing the monarchy didn't happen to these countries because people had some theoretical debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the system but because the countries faced sort sort of unstability, political, social or other. Think about it: Russia abolished monarchy because of social and economic problems , Germany and Austria after WWI , Yugoslavia Bulgaria and Rumania after WWII and the coming of communism, Italy also after WWII , Greece after a 7 years dictatorship etc. In all the above mentioned countries there was some factor which sort of destabilized them, in one way or another . So ,IMO, the next country who will abolish monarchy in Europe will be the one who will face major economic , social or political destabilisation (I hope I got this word right :D), because the way I see it, if a country has a stable political system , fairly good ecomny and doesn't face major social problems. people won't really bother changing their system no matter what the percentage of republican is.
 
IMO, Sweden is most likely to become a republic. 75% of Spanish citizens place their monarchy above any other public instutution in the country, while only 65% or so Sweeds have a positive opinion of the role of monarchy in their country.

So Swenden is most likely to go republican... they've already castrated the monarchy anyway.
 
I've looked at this thread many times and I haven't voted until now, I voted for Sweden and I was surprised to see that 74 people voted for Spain.
 
Well... the monarchy is something that belongs to the culture and tradition of a country.
Almost all of these current monarchies are just..."something" (i'm not finding the right word in english) that adorn, decorate the country.
You are right: Nowadays European monarchs serve only for repreentation, they have no politcal power, they cannot express their political opinions - they have to do what Prime Minister, government & parliament order them.

My country was also a monarchy in earlier ages, France was, Russia, Portugal, Germany...but this time is over and this countries didn't retroceed in their development becoming republics.

As for tradition: Tradition is for people, not people for tradition.
 
We live in very uncertain times today, and as Zonk said above, in too many countries there is an increasingly polarised political situation, even in the best democracies. In such times, the importance of tradition and institutions above politics is paramount, which is where the value of monarchies in countries that retain them are.

No few of us, and certainly many of our parents and grandparents (who in turn had it passed down from their parents and grandparents), can remember anywhere between 1914 and 1989 when, let's face it, Europe was more or less at war with itself with two World Wars and the Cold War. This came after the so-called "Long 19th Century" between 1789 and 1914, the period between the French Revolution and World War I, that saw profound changes in the social and political makeup of Europe. It's in this context that we come to realise that too radical a change can be a bad thing for everybody.

And we can also remember the worst abusers of human rights, apart from absolute monarchies in the Middle East, were the dictatorships of Latin America and Eastern Europe, and those weren't monarchies. I guess from seeing how those regions in particular are still coming to terms with the mess of the 20th century, we can appreciate what we have here and now.

You can't say that Germany and Portugal were exactly better off after their monarchies were overthrown. It took many years for Portugal to evolve into a stable democratic republic, and that came after 50 years of dictatorship. Similarly in Germany and Austria, you have some historians arguing that if the monarchies had survived, they might have prevented the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, though I'm not sure if everyone would agree with that one.

Maybe it's in this context, that people are reluctant to change what they have now.
 
Who said Spanish monarchy is new? The Borbons reign since XVIII century. I voted for Spain because it was the only country I have ever seen talking about The Third Republic with seriousness.
 
You are right: Nowadays European monarchs serve only for repreentation, they have no politcal power, they cannot express their political opinions - they have to do what Prime Minister, government & parliament order them.

My country was also a monarchy in earlier ages, France was, Russia, Portugal, Germany...but this time is over and this countries didn't retroceed in their development becoming republics.

As for tradition: Tradition is for people, not people for tradition.

I disagree with you and Biri.
Monarchies would not be around for long if they were merely "decorative".
They are personifications of national identities, especially in periods of crisis.
In democracies, their role of being outside the political squabble is important. Royals may represent the establishment but not the politicians. Especially as so very politicians are statesmen.
In contrast to politicians royals genuinely represent their countries, because that is the main purpose of their existance, while very few politicians can free themselves form the suspicion of mainly doing whatever they do just to get votes.

Also, tradition is pretty important. Tradition represent stabillity in a changing world and a fix point back in time, that hopefully, is above politics.
 
We live in very uncertain times today, and as Zonk said above, in too many countries there is an increasingly polarised political situation, even in the best democracies. In such times, the importance of tradition and institutions above politics is paramount, which is where the value of monarchies in countries that retain them are.

No few of us, and certainly many of our parents and grandparents (who in turn had it passed down from their parents and grandparents), can remember anywhere between 1914 and 1989 when, let's face it, Europe was more or less at war with itself with two World Wars and the Cold War. This came after the so-called "Long 19th Century" between 1789 and 1914, the period between the French Revolution and World War I, that saw profound changes in the social and political makeup of Europe. It's in this context that we come to realise that too radical a change can be a bad thing for everybody.

And we can also remember the worst abusers of human rights, apart from absolute monarchies in the Middle East, were the dictatorships of Latin America and Eastern Europe, and those weren't monarchies. I guess from seeing how those regions in particular are still coming to terms with the mess of the 20th century, we can appreciate what we have here and now.

You can't say that Germany and Portugal were exactly better off after their monarchies were overthrown. It took many years for Portugal to evolve into a stable democratic republic, and that came after 50 years of dictatorship. Similarly in Germany and Austria, you have some historians arguing that if the monarchies had survived, they might have prevented the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, though I'm not sure if everyone would agree with that one.

Maybe it's in this context, that people are reluctant to change what they have now.
Was Italy a monarchy when Mussolini took power? Yes, it was.
Had his dictatorship tragic consequences for the country? Yes, it had.

The rise of dictatorships is not a fault of a republican regime.
Presidents also represent their countries - and Presidents are elected. Although I don't like Hugo Chavez, at this point he is right.

Being elected by your co-citizens (majority of them, of course) gives you a sense of what you do and satisfaction of what you do.
The Presidency shows a beginning and an end; is not a sentence for all your life.

Monarchy doesn't have it; there is all described in the genealogical tree.

As for current monarchies: these countries were simply lucky not to have such monarchs abusing their power who could give them occasion to start a revolution which would overthrow monarchy, like it happened in France.
 
Was Italy a monarchy when Mussolini took power? Yes, it was.
Had his dictatorship tragic consequences for the country? Yes, it had.

The rise of dictatorships is not a fault of a republican regime.
Presidents also represent their countries - and Presidents are elected. Although I don't like Hugo Chavez, at this point he is right.

Being elected by your co-citizens (majority of them, of course) gives you a sense of what you do and satisfaction of what you do.
The Presidency shows a beginning and an end; is not a sentence for all your life.

I definitely agree, no one system of government is inherently wrong, or better or worse. But I am offering a realistic appraisal of historical and current situations, and also a commentary on the historic ironies that are often lost on those who question the value of monarchy today.

Do we expect a certain standard from monarchs? Absolutely.
Do we expect a certain standard from elected officials? Absolutely, as well.

Monarchy doesn't have it; there is all described in the genealogical tree.

As for current monarchies: these countries were simply lucky not to have such monarchs abusing their power who could give them occasion to start a revolution which would overthrow monarchy, like it happened in France.

And that's fair enough. Even in modern times we've seen contrasts between good and bad, especially in the developing world.
 
Lady Diana,
I'm not sure whether we are allowed to post about Northern Ireland.

In any case, things have improved hugely in the last three to five years, and the Northern Ireland Assembly government has become one of the devolved administrations in Britain, along with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
Either way, the Queen is still in charge :)

Have a look at the TV coverage on the N.I. Assembly on the BBC:

Welcome to the Northern Ireland Assembly
 
Why would you not be 'allowed to post about Northern Ireland'? They are part of the UK are they not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom