Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?

[EIIR]

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.

Of course we're not chopping off heads; we no longer need to go to those lengths to get things done. Edward VII was accepted and admired by the people because he did his job to the best of his ability and in a way that the British people supported. I used the examples as evidence that the British people have a rebellious streak in them, and are not averse to removing a monarch they don't want.

If during the collective national mass hysteria after Diana's death the Queen had refused to bow to the mob, and there had been big demonstrations in the streets for a prolonged period, does anyone genuinely think that nothing would've happened? The politicians, realising that they're on the wrong side of the prevailing mood would've jumped on the bandwagon, as would the press and the media. In that atmosphere, the PM would likely be advising the Queen to abdicate, and she would have to take that advice; or there would be a referendum on whether to abolish the monarchy and become a republic.

Our constitutional monarchy is not an immovable relic that doesn't change; it's constantly evolving to reflect the nation and people that it serves.

 

[padams2359]

Juan Carlos is playing the fiddle as Madrid burns, and his son in law is clearing what left of the Treasury. The Dutchess of Alba would be more suited to run the country.

 

[padams2359]

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.

Thank you. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. But when it comes to the Spainish Royal Family, I know more than most. You know the old rule, "I can criticize my own family, but you may not.". Well, I believe the first part, and if the family put it out there, so can you. I, through must professional family research and Geneological Societies research published records, I descend for Phillip II, and we all know what he did. Lost the Armada to Elizabeth and bankrupted the treasury.

There for I think based on history, and present behavior he will stand guard as the country goes destitute on his watch. "The acquisition of multiple w100 Billion€ bailouts, do not a great king make."

I want to like them. The Crown Prince and Prince produce some beautiful babies. Pretty monarchs, even rather average looking Royal Families produce their weight in platinum of the return in tourist and business dollars for a simple meet and bow. I don't understand it. Spain is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, as is Greece. The cradle of civilization. Everywhere you look is ancient buildings and beautiful views. Taxes on tourist spending alone should float them.

If Juan Carlos wants to save the future do his monarchy, anything else and he has to step aside for a full powered (as much as the have) to a Prince Regent and retire. Juan Carlos should have known what was going on with the bum of a son-in-law. This was happening over time, and people had to know and said nothing. Plus the mistress, the safari and the trip to Monaco while he could not do his job. He should be work 24/7 to solve his countries problems, and nobody can tell me he is.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Can someone explain how adultery is treated in Spain? I have always been told that the US is anal when it comes to the private lives of their heads of state. But a mistress of the King is on the list of reasons why the monarchy could possibly be abolished.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

If Juan Carlos wants to save the future do his monarchy, anything else and he has to step aside for a full powered (as much as the have) to a Prince Regent and retire. Juan Carlos should have known what was going on with the bum of a son-in-law. This was happening over time, and people had to know and said nothing. Plus the mistress, the safari and the trip to Monaco while he could not do his job. He should be work 24/7 to solve his countries problems, and nobody can tell me he is.

JC is not a politician, he is a figurehead. What do people expect of him? There is no reason to abolish the institution because JC has a mistress, so what, there are more pressing problems. And even though Felipe likes to present himself sometimes as if he were a politician, he is not a saviour to replace the Old Man and Spain will be well off again.

Again, I dont see Spain getting rid of the monarchy as long as JC is alive, he is the one who drove the democratic process, without him there would be no CP Felipe around in the first place. And then, Felipe will be given a chance and why not, and then its up to him and up to Leonor to make something of it. And if they fail, as a consequence the institution might go, at some point in future decades.

 

[auntie]

I am also of the agreement that if anyone, then the Spanish monarchy will be the first to go, not by chopping off anyone's head, maybe by a vote. JC is of the generation that the mistress had a place in royal lives, but not anymore and he hasn't adapted...

 

[padams2359]

The string started at "Which country Could be the next to abolish the monarchy.". Not list the reasons that JC should be abolished. I do ask this question, "Who is, list the reasons, why a monarch should go. Although the string started as Monarchy, which I feel encompasses the entire family, the head seems to be the topic. I am not talking about desert monarchs with billions of dollars and his people are destitute, or the monsters of some African countries, that is obvious be anyone with a minimum of intelligence. Discuss

 

[David V]

The string started at "Which country Could be the next to abolish the monarchy.". Not list the reasons that JC should be abolished. I do ask this question, "Who is, list the reasons, why a monarch should go. Although the string started as Monarchy, which I feel encompasses the entire family, the head seems to be the topic. I am not talking about desert monarchs with billions of dollars and his people are destitute, or the monsters of some African countries, that is obvious be anyone with a minimum of intelligence. Discuss

And the worst of these monsters aren't monarchies at all. Look at Syria and Libya for starters, or Iran.

Remember when Argentina invaded the Falklands, or when Belize became independent as a Commonwealth country while Guatemala claimed it? What were Argentina and Guatemala, both Latin American republics, doing at that time? Slaughtering their own people by thousands, while the US supported them (and shame on them for that). What could be worse than that? Hence why I get angry when people think monarchies are a "bad" thing when the worst regimes in modern history aren't monarchies at all.

 

[Meraude]

Just because a country is a monarchy doesn't necessarily mean that it is a democracy and will remain so, and that elections will be fair. The history of Thailand during the first decade of the 21th century have shown that a monarch is in no way a guarantee for stability.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Just because a country is a monarchy doesn't necessarily mean that it is a democracy and will remain so, and that elections will be fair. The history of Thailand during the first decade of the 21th century have shown that a monarch is in no way a guarantee for stability.

One could say the same thing about Fiji, but there are always going to be the odd monarchy that lets the side down. By and large, constitutional monarchies - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium etc. are more stable politically.

In some cases, an independent monarch has been crucial to the establishment of representative democracy - e.g. Spain and Tonga.

 

[COUNTESS]

One could say the same thing about Fiji, but there are always going to be the odd monarchy that lets the side down. By and large, constitutional monarchies - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium etc. are more stable politically.

In some cases, an independent monarch has been crucial to the establishment of representative democracy - e.g. Spain and Tonga.

I may be wrong, but Canada, Austraila and New Zealand are not monarchies, but part of a Commonwealth. But they have their own independent governments.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I may be wrong, but Canada, Austraila and New Zealand are not monarchies, but part of a Commonwealth. But they have their own independent governments.

They are constitutional monarchies - Her Majesty the Queen is the source of executive power which is exercised by her Governors-General on the advice of the respective governments. She is on our coins, on our bank notes, issues honours and awards to our citizens, signs bills from the Parliament into law and so on. Any changes to legislation affecting the succession to the throne of Britain requires the consent of Australia, NZ, Canada and her other realms. She may not be resident in all 15 of her realms but all 15 of them identify themselves and are recognised as constitutional monarchies.

It is important to remember that there is a distinction between the 54 member Commonwealth of Nations - which includes monarchies and republics - and the 16 nations of which Her Majesty the Queen is the Head of State, known as Commonwealth Realms

See here for further information - http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx

 

[Meraude]

In some cases, an independent monarch has been crucial to the establishment of representative democracy - e.g. Spain and Tonga.

Yes, king Juan Carlos played an important role in establish democracy in Spain, especially at the time of the attempted coup in February 1981. I would guess that he had a warning example of what could happen if he didn't act quickly in favour of democracy in his brother-in-law Constantine and his actions during the Greek military coup in April 1967.

 

[Alexey 1904]

I would vote on Liechtenstein, what with the ways of the country determined by Prince Alois' moods on certain topics, but, I see from your suvey, Spain is taking top honors so far.

 

[COUNTESS]

They are constitutional monarchies - Her Majesty the Queen is the source of executive power which is exercised by her Governors-General on the advice of the respective governments. She is on our coins, on our bank notes, issues honours and awards to our citizens, signs bills from the Parliament into law and so on. Any changes to legislation affecting the succession to the throne of Britain requires the consent of Australia, NZ, Canada and her other realms. She may not be resident in all 15 of her realms but all 15 of them identify themselves and are recognised as constitutional monarchies.

It is important to remember that there is a distinction between the 54 member Commonwealth of Nations - which includes monarchies and republics - and the 16 nations of which Her Majesty the Queen is the Head of State, known as Commonwealth Realms

See here for further information - http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx

Interesting, because I have many Canadian friends, who objected to being including in a "monarchy". They, believe, they are part of a Commonwealth, but are a Republic. They informed of this. Perhaps, they should start thinking of legislation or rebellion?

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Interesting, because I have many Canadian friends, who objected to being including in a "monarchy". They, believe, they are part of a Commonwealth, but are a Republic. They informed of this. Perhaps, they should start thinking of legislation or rebellion?

Your friends surprise me, COUNTESS, as Canada is considered to be the most supportive of the monarchy of all 15 Commonwealth Realms. They maintain more of the trappings and traditions associated with the monarch than many other of their fellow realms.

 

[scooter]

After the King of Spain's recent behavior, I would say that there are many disaffected with him. If the public sentiment gets bad enough, he might have to step down in favor of his son.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

After the King of Spain's recent behavior, I would say that there are many disaffected with him. If the public sentiment gets bad enough, he might have to step down in favor of his son.

Who would ask him to step down, considering the big picture what he has done for the country? And why would people think that Felipe would be of any more benefit to the country than his father with his vast connections?

Despite of what happened, I still believe that Spaniards are rather Juancarlists than monarchists and that Felipe, although given a chance when his time has come, wont be greeted with any enthusiasm.

 

[Artemisia]

Interesting, because I have many Canadian friends, who objected to being including in a "monarchy". They, believe, they are part of a Commonwealth, but are a Republic. They informed of this. Perhaps, they should start thinking of legislation or rebellion?

Canada is a fully independent, sovereign country with its own Government and its own Head of State. And yes, they are also part of the Commonwealth. However, Canada is also a Monarchy that happens to share its Head of State with 15 other countries (the 16 Countries are collectively known as Commonwealth Realms). I think it might be necessary to point out the difference between Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms.

Commonwealth Realms: there are currently sixteen Commonwealth Realms. All of those countries are independent and sovereign states; they do, however, share the same Monarch (currently, Elizabeth II) - a situation that is commonly known as Personal Union of Crowns. That situation is not unique; for example, Denmark, Norway and Sweden enjoyed several personal unions of crowns throughout their existence. The Commonwealth Realms are:
- United Kingdom
- Canada
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Jamaica
- Papua New Guinea
- Tuvalu
- Solomon Islands
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Barbados
- Bahamas
- Belize
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Grenada


The Commonwealth of Nations
The Commonwealth of Nations is an organisation of fifty-four member states that share historical and cultural ties. All the members, with the exception of Rwanda and Mozambique, were once part of the British Empire.
While the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth of Nations, she is NOT Queen of any of the 54 nations, aside from the 16 Commonwealth Realms. For instance, Cyprus is part of the Commonwealth, but the Elizabeth II is obviously not Queen of Cyprus.

 

[An Ard Ri]

After the King of Spain's recent behavior, I would say that there are many disaffected with him. If the public sentiment gets bad enough, he might have to step down in favor of his son.

I haven't seen any evidence of this,the King recently attended the Day of the armed forces in Valladolid and was greeted with burst of applause and cheering.Ofcourse his recent antics have damaged the image of the King but I'm certain that King Juan Carlos will turn that around.

 

[Furienna]

Yeah, you wouldn't think that monarchy and democracy could be reintroduced together, but the situation in Spain has showed us otherwise. I'm not familiar with the situatuion at Tonga, but I guess it was similar? And even though 1905 was a while ago now, Norway also chose to introduce their own monarchy rather than becoming a republic.

 

[fearghas]

Yeah, you wouldn't think that monarchy and democracy could be reintroduced together, but the situation in Spain has showed us otherwise. I'm not familiar with the situatuion at Tonga, but I guess it was similar? And even though 1905 was a while ago now, Norway also chose to introduce their own monarchy rather than becoming a republic.

And its thanks to the previous King that Bhutan is also a democracy.

 

[Lenora]

I've observed that now there are some Republican parties or movements in monarchical states , but they speak a lot theoretically about the reasons it should be abolished etc.
I'm interested in a different question, the mechanism of abolishing monarchies. If I'm not wrong, these parties are searching for the signatures of people who are in favour of eventual abolishment or they should ascend to the Parliament to organize a referendum.
Though I don't understand the point of these movements, as constitutional monarchies are sometimes better than republican systems.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

I say Spain. There is just too much going on over there that cant be overlooked. The king does things that are very questionable. The SRF seem to only care about what is in thier best interest. I dont think the spanish people are standing behind the family and now that all this Inaki court thing and the King going on endangered animal hunts and having affairs with whoever, the people are tired. I for one think that the monarchy needs to be abolished so the people dont have to take care of these ungrateful snobs. Just my opinion.

 

[vkrish]

It has hardly anything to do with Royals..

The survival of monarchy is not solely dependant on the royals..Indeed the hunting trip of King Juan Carlos, Inaki scandal, Prince of Wales' "past", the perceived "unreadiness" of Princes Felipe/Frederick/Haakon..all these things are in no way going to lead to the abolition.These just are the regular ups and downs any institution will go through. One Jubilee/Wedding/Birth/Death is enough to forget all these and say..AND ALL THE PEOPLE REJOICED.....
If we see the recent past, monarchies have just become scapegoats to the internal political situations in those countries.One truth is..CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES ARE NEVER STRONG THEMSELVES.THEY ARE STRENGTHENED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONS..Once there occurs a political vaccume in any country the power seekers (Communists,military,whatever) will project themselves as people of the poor/common man..and show monarchy in bad light.Monarchs are forced to act in one way or other in absence of political stability..and whatever they do is shown/seen in bad light
In the present situation I feel only Belgium has chances, if any, of going into that stage, given the severe divisive crisis and the reluctance of politicians to come up together over their selfish motives.I am not very thorough about it and hope the gravity of situation is less..
Otherwise, if there is political and economic stability, people will hardly bother the royals, though they keep fretting and fuming on them once in a while.

 

[vkrish]

And mine! People's affection for and sense of connection to our Monarchy is a firm quality of British charactor. Besides a vulgar minority of British republicans (who very few ever take seriously), there isn't even a force contesting the institution of the Monarchy in Britain.

And mine toooo..

 

[AnnEliza]

And mine toooo..

And I feel affection for the monarchy as well, despite being an American! Maybe it's my heritage of Dutch, English, Scottish, Welsh and Hawaiian!

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I voted UK because it appears to be breaking up. I do think, however, that the Monarchy will survive in England if the English will have Charles and Camilla. I don't think Australia will hang around for that though...

 

[royalistbert]

Really at this moment I would say the UK is one of the safest houses.

 

[ANNIE_S]

If UK falls, then there is no hope for any other of the European monarchies