The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
View Poll Results: In your opinion, which European country is more likely to become a republic?
Belgium 81 20.30%
Denmark 12 3.01%
Great Britain 39 9.77%
Liechtenstein 12 3.01%
Luxembourg 9 2.26%
Monaco 16 4.01%
The Netherlands 4 1.00%
Norway 55 13.78%
Spain 140 35.09%
Sweden 31 7.77%
Voters: 399. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 01-26-2011, 01:35 AM
Lady Felicity M's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 318
I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 01-26-2011, 01:38 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
The media can be a dangerous thing regardless of who is in power. A monarchy doesn't make it safer. While I think that the Belgium monarchy is in danger the people might be willing to keep it because it does appear to be a source of unity in a divided country. When the government couldn't agree on which party would lead the country that left King Albert to take over. This move might endure them to the country, because without a monarchy there would have been nobody.

As for the European monarchies, social situations are changing and that effects them. Even popular monarchies like Sweden and England are coming under fire because they are viewed as old-fashioned. I especially think that England's monarchy will continue to go down in size as countries like Australia and Canada decide not to have the Queen as their leader. I think in 50 or 100 years there will probably be no more monarchies in the world.

Public opinion is incredible fickle, one small incident could turn into something big. I remember a few months ago there were riots that swept through England that concerned student tuition fees. Eventually the royal family came under attack due to their money and status. So I don't think anyone can say for certain how stable these types of governments are.
Europe's current monarchies are some of the best-functioning democracies anywhere. In fact, it has been shown that a republic is no more democratic or egalitarian, and the monarchy is effective in unifying and upholding the system and its values. Royals shine where politicians flounder and can unite where others divide. Without that, people have nobody to turn to and rally around- which makes much uglier options (or descent into apathy, which is just as dangerous) more viable.

You have to look at the period between the World Wars where the German and Austrian monarchies fell aside, the vacuum created was readily exploited by Hitler. If those monarchies had survived, there is good reason to suggest the rise of Hitler may have been averted. The only European republic that maintained democratic government to the end was Czechoslovakia- even France basically collapsed.

After all, look at Latin American countries, they weren't exactly models of democracy or equality and in fact corruption and inequalities still persists. In fact, almost EVERY Latin American country from Mexico to Argentina has had a history of grave human rights violations. Just look at Guatemala, which is only two doors down from the US. This has only changed, really, in the last quarter of a century.

Half of Europe still has the scars of totalitarian rule and are still coming to terms with it. Look at Serbia, Romania, Georgia, etc- countries where restoration of the monarchy even enters the political debate as a result. All that means is that criticisms of today's monarchies are, IMHO, badly misplaced. This does not say that any given system of government is foolproof, or that any is indeed wrong, but there are sound historical arguments either way.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 01-26-2011, 02:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Felicity M View Post
I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now
What do you mean by 'part of the British realm'?

The only thing we have that ties us to Britain these days is the Queen and history but Britain and Australia are otherwise completely independent countries. It is perfectly possible for Britain and Australia to take opposite sides in a war for instance - something which couldn't have happened 100 years ago.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 01-29-2011, 10:55 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Felicity M View Post
I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now
I would be suprised if Australia, Canada or New Zealand remained a part of the commonwealth after the current Queen passes away. They "seem" so detached from the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 01-31-2011, 01:49 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
I would be suprised if Australia, Canada or New Zealand remained a part of the commonwealth after the current Queen passes away. They "seem" so detached from the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters.

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 01-31-2011, 03:17 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.
A Commonwealth realm becoming a republic makes no difference to the practice of government. Malta, Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius are such- the President is theoretically elected by Parliament but is, like a governor-general, always an appointee of the government. While the Queen nominally appoints the governor-general and Australian state governors, the government of the day has the last word in practice. The lieutenant-governors in Canada are slightly different: they are technically subordinate to the GG, and are essentially employees (and constitutionally, agents instructed to act on behalf) of the federal government, salary paid for by them, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 01-31-2011, 03:42 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by David V View Post
A Commonwealth realm becoming a republic makes no difference to the practice of government. Malta, Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius are such- the President is theoretically elected by Parliament but is, like a governor-general, always an appointee of the government. While the Queen nominally appoints the governor-general and Australian state governors, the government of the day has the last word in practice. The lieutenant-governors in Canada are slightly different: they are technically subordinate to the GG, and are essentially employees (and constitutionally, agents instructed to act on behalf) of the federal government, salary paid for by them, etc.

I have a question for you: How does any of this related to my question? Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

Jemarge said that she thought that Australia, Canada and New Zealand would leave the Commonwealth when the Queen dies and I simply asked her why she that that would happen.



The vast majority of countries of the Commonwealth (as I am sure you know as an Australian) are in fact republics already.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 01-31-2011, 09:23 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
I think I was more on the line that debate over the monarchy in Commonwealth Realms such as Australia is rather different to what it is elsewhere, since we (in Australia and other such realms) do not have "our own" monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 02-01-2011, 12:58 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.
Sorry I meant monarchy not Commonwealth. I am certain they would stay with that. My original idea was that these countries would cease to be monarchies because they do not seem to have strong ties with England in regards to the matter, and has you have pointed out already, seem to function as republics. Sorry for the confusion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 02-05-2011, 03:32 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 58
Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.


As for the Commonwealth Realms... Had I been Queen of England I would have sent my children to serve as Governor-Generals to commonwealth realms to possibly succeed as heads-of-state there. Maybe the Princess-Royal serving as Governor-General of Canada then as queen there, the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia then king there, and the Earl of Wessex as governor-general of New Zealand and then king there too. *shrug* as it is, It seems likely that after good queen Bess passes these realms may take a different path.
__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 02-05-2011, 07:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.
The protests in Jordan are not actually aimed at the monarchy but calling instead for reforms of government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 02-05-2011, 05:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.


As for the Commonwealth Realms... Had I been Queen of England I would have sent my children to serve as Governor-Generals to commonwealth realms to possibly succeed as heads-of-state there. Maybe the Princess-Royal serving as Governor-General of Canada then as queen there, the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia then king there, and the Earl of Wessex as governor-general of New Zealand and then king there too. *shrug* as it is, It seems likely that after good queen Bess passes these realms may take a different path.

By the time QEII's children were of an age to take on those positions the relevant countries were no longer accepting foreigners as GG.

The time to do that was past by the time QEII became Queen really but had Victoria done it then these countries may very well be content monarchies with a history of their own monarchy.

The Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia in the 1940s and wasn't all that popular in that position - partly because of his attitude I believe. My mother worked for the British High Commission during the final year of his time as GG and told me that he wasn't popular with either the Australians or the British in Canberra at the time.

I wonder what would happen if say the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew abdicated their rights to be the monarch of Australia and thus Beatrice, at 22 became a young Queen of Australia - would she be accepted - probably not but could it satisfy some of the republicans to have 'our own' monarch whose children would be born and raised here etc.? A thought only.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 02-11-2011, 11:24 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 58
Egyptian president Mubarak resigns and grants extra-constitutional power to the army.


Yeman and Jordan next? Pundats yesterday were saying Mubarak would likely stay on until the elections. All bets are off, me thinks if the King of Jordon does not act asap his regime may be next indeed.

Sad truth is I generally like the King of Jordan, as he is a western leaning ruler. But if he has not been ruling in a western fashion with an eye for a democratic legislative assembly, basic human rights, and an execultive answerable to the legislative assembly then perhaps he should also step down?
__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 02-11-2011, 12:06 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 58
With the transfer of power in Egypt under the auspices of the army, might there be a role for Mohamad Ali, Prince of the Sa'id and the deposed Egyptian royal family? Might they become the focus of a united Egypt in much the same way as the King of Spain has become for that country?
__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 02-15-2011, 06:40 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 58
Bahrain's government next? These middle eastern monarchies really need to embrace the liberal democratic ideas of the West if they wish to survive like Western monarchies have. The need to embrace peaceful transfer of power, multiparty systems, the rule of law, and the monarchies of these realms should transition much like the Spanish monarchy has.

Good luck to them I say.
__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 03-08-2011, 12:22 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
Bahrain's government next? These middle eastern monarchies really need to embrace the liberal democratic ideas of the West if they wish to survive like Western monarchies have. The need to embrace peaceful transfer of power, multiparty systems, the rule of law, and the monarchies of these realms should transition much like the Spanish monarchy has.

Good luck to them I say.
How do we know that western monarchies won't be next? They are more liberal than there middle-eastern counterparts but they still operate on the same premise. For all we know there could be mass protests against them tomorrow. These countries are fighting for democracy. Monarchies may be constitutional in the west but they still are not democracies.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 03-08-2011, 12:31 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
You cannot compare the Middle East and Europe because of how different societies and cultures are. And for what it's worth, reforms are more likely to be easily carried out in some of the monarchies, and Morocco is in fact quite democratic compared to most of the Arab world. Most Arab countries, despite many of them providing a decent standard of living, do not provide the sort of political rights and free expression, which is what this is all about now. And the most abusive regimes in the Arab world are not even monarchies (except, perhaps, Saudi Arabia). That's why the protests in Tunisia and Egypt go to where they are, because their presidents not only abused power but also found ways to do both that and enrich their close circles.

Most people know what works and won't want to change what works, after all look what happened between two World Wars. And European monarchies provide the sort of unifying force and safety valve to democracies that many other countries do not have, for the worse. Nobody's political rights and civil liberties in Europe are being suppressed like they have in much of the Middle East and Asia.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:26 AM
Princess Martine's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 84
This is an interesting discussion!

I voted for Sweden.

I really don't hope they (or any other European monarchy) become a republic though!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 03-08-2011, 07:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 852
I will not vote, but I am convinced that monarchy will not exist anymore in say about 50 years.
I live in what is said to be a stable monarchy, the Netherlands but a lot of young people (the future) could not care less about the royal family.
The most traditional celebration of the dutch monarchy Koninginnedag is celebrated by most of the people because it is a day off and you can sell your old stuff on the free-market.
The second day, Prinsjesdag (Opening of the Parliament) is only celebrated by a handfull of royal diehards.
The majority of the people is mostly interested in the new plans of the government and the cuts of the budget, and I can even understand that!!




There is a lot of complain today about the costs of the monarchy
A lot of young people don't feel connected to the RF
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 03-09-2011, 12:36 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by David V View Post
You cannot compare the Middle East and Europe because of how different societies and cultures are. And for what it's worth, reforms are more likely to be easily carried out in some of the monarchies, and Morocco is in fact quite democratic compared to most of the Arab world. Most Arab countries, despite many of them providing a decent standard of living, do not provide the sort of political rights and free expression, which is what this is all about now. And the most abusive regimes in the Arab world are not even monarchies (except, perhaps, Saudi Arabia). That's why the protests in Tunisia and Egypt go to where they are, because their presidents not only abused power but also found ways to do both that and enrich their close circles.

Most people know what works and won't want to change what works, after all look what happened between two World Wars. And European monarchies provide the sort of unifying force and safety valve to democracies that many other countries do not have, for the worse. Nobody's political rights and civil liberties in Europe are being suppressed like they have in much of the Middle East and Asia.
I am not exactly comparing the societies. I am comparing the basic idea that the institution rest on. The idea that someone is more able to "lead" a country because they were born into the right family. That idea is the same whether you are talking about Europe or the Middle East. The argument against monarchies is the same the world over. That is what I was referring to. We have no real way of knowing when people will say that they have had enough of monarchies. Revolutions are not always easy to predict.

You also argue that monarchies are seen as a unifying force. How unifying is it for Catholics who can't marry into the family? How unifying is it for minorities? I submit the example of the "secret" trip that William and Kate just took. If the monarchy was a source of unification there would not be so much strife in Northern Ireland today.

By the way no government will provide absolute unity but I do not think that monarchies are necessarily the greatest example of unified government.
__________________

__________________
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
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 314 07-03-2014 10:55 AM
From a country saved by the Monarchy Haliotis Member Introductions and Updates 3 03-30-2008 03:27 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince frederik prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit sweden wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]