Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[Kit]

As always I wholeheartedly agree with you Lumutqueen! It is for the population to decide if they want a monarchy or a republic.

 

[Artemisia]

I am in agreement with Lumutqueen and Kit: it is up to people of a given country to choose their system of Government.
As someone who happens to live in an "annoying" republic, what with Armenia facing so many problems in so many areas, Monarchy is the last thing we need. Or want.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I think its self evident that the people will decide the fate of monarchies. There is no Divine Right

Every monarchy has a 'republican' movement that campaigns against it, so monarchists should and are entitled to support and safeguard their monarchy by whatever means they can.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As a citizen of a country that has one vote to become a republic and will have another I know, and agree, that it is up to the people of the country to decide whether or not they should be a monarchy or a republic.

 

[Osipi]

All I can say is that if the US had a monarch as head of state, our elected officials would spend more time getting things done and less time campaigning for positions that cost billions of dollars.

 

[Princess Yasmine S]

Safe Guarding Monarchy

Safe Guarding Monarchy:

Have we a true grasp on the Monarchy Root? Monarchy was established by the people! The People that these Monarchy were established for were, Family from Tribal Cultures, Independant but of One Divine Source. If we were where our Origins began, then maybe as 'Family Members' we would not contest the Imperial 'Leader' provided and learned to Serve the People of the 'given' Tribe under Critique?
It is important to recall: Life has many forms and each form has a right to 'Life'! When a people as a 'Nation', stand-up to rise against the Imperial Social Structure, we know that Allah-God was right, in stating, to the People: " You know not what you want, nor will you like that which you choose over me above Your God!".
We as usual, a People of Divine Source, now turn to the World and deem Allah-God a Divine Source of Wisdom, owed Respect in being Infallible of Word; yet often misinterpreted due the lost state of 'Spirited Oneness' in fallible 'Mankind'.
The Land belonged to the Imperial Leaders, and they the 'Leaders' were family for the 'People' they Shepherded. This is a Eason for us all to Pray, where is my place my Divine Source, that I might not fail to remain in Thy understanding?

 

[Artemisia]

Well, obviously monarchs (tribal leaders, chiefs and others) were initially chosen by people. But then again, the strongest leaders capable of protecting the people and country in times of troubles were chosen; monarchs were expected to physically lead armies, make laws and oversee justice. All of those duties are no longer relevant in our times.

 

[royalistbert]

I for one hope that all remaining European monarchies stay in place!

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I hope all Europeans choose for themselves what kind of government they want.

 

[vkrish]

All I can say is that if the US had a monarch as head of state, our elected officials would spend more time getting things done and less time campaigning for positions that cost billions of dollars.

Osipi..I dont agree with the context of ur opinion. If US were a monarchy, it will mostly be a constitutional one, and still there will be pwerful Prime Ministers and Ministers, who will still be spending billions for campaigns..You say you want absolute monarchy, just to limit campaign costs? then I am afraid it is a really really terrible idea, in this age, for that country.

 

[ciarano177]

the guardian is pretty much republican newspapaer i wouldn't exactly rely on them for a acurate tale of the fatcs

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't understand why anyone would want an absolute monarchy simply because of campaigns and their costs? Why suppress the will of the people and have one person or one family making all the decisions for millions?

 

[cepe]

I am in favour of a constitutional monarchy for the UK.

The main benefit of this is the exclusion of politics for the Head of State. IMO as soon as you decide on electing a Head of State, politics rears its ugly head. Either those standing for the position are overtly political, ie supported by a specific political party; or the alternative is seemly non-political. But the person standing for Head of State surely must state their beliefs or views. As soon as this occurs, these views will become small "p" political. Environment, support of charities, helping the homeless; the Arts; multi-cultural; public transport; support for the elderly; education; the military.............. all can have a political edge.

Prime Ministers of Uk have always said that the political neutrality of the monarchy and their ability to speak in confidence about issues has been good for their term of office.

It works for the Uk and I wouldn't want to change it.

 

[Trillian]

good grief

Hmm my topic has been merged.

One more thing.How many of you know that after the australian double dissolution which was ordered by the queen Both the Pm's of australia were the original force behind the republic referendum of 1999 and the monarch says that she has no authority to remove.The governor generals are the agents of the queen.
The queen is visiting Australia as to see if her puppet gillard can push the carbon tax.It is the queen who is pushing for carbon tax.If gillard failed then she would have been removed.

The house of hanover learned from thier mistakes of george the III.Now its done via stealth and all blame is taken by the governor general.

Another Article by D.M
Sayonara #6 - Royal Incubators

May I just say as an Aussie of a certain age, still living in Australia, who was a teenager during the Whitlam years and remembers this era and the dismissal very well, that you might have the wrong end of the stick here? Do you know/understand the trigger mechanism for double dissolutions under our Constitution? Why the Govt of the day couldn't continue to govern? Why the matter had to go back to the people in the form of a new Election being held?
The Queen ordered both PMs. Huh? Which PMs and to do what?

Governors & Governors General: do you understand how they are selected and their role?

You keep referencing "DM"? Im guessing that's The London Daily Mail as there hasn't been a newspaper with those initials here for over 20years. Why you would reference an English paper regarding Australian issues is a bit puzzling.

The Queen, PM Gillard and the carbon tax? I really don't know where you're getting this from.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

ThomasPaine, No one cares, because you never listen to the arguments put up against you.

Tillian, did you see the post from Muhler? Honestly, it makes sense...ThomasPaine's posts on Australia seem off the planet to me.

Does TP really believe what TP posts? WOW!

 

[Ryanm]

No To Republic

Are you fed up with those republicans, no to republic has been set up as a counter protest group to the group Republic, we do not ask for money or anything like that, just for your support and a follow on twitter.
https://twitter.com/notorepublic

 

[wyevale]

'followed'...

 

[Jacknch]

The only thing that makes me fed-up with the pro-republics/anti-monarchy people is that whenever there is a major royal event, such as a wedding, Jubilee or birth, they're such a miserable bunch of kill-joys who have nothing whatsoever positive, friendly or even nice to say and it does nothing for their cause. There is nothing fun or celebratory about these people and, quite frankly, if the ones I have seen on TV teh last week or so are prime examples of who would run the country in the event of the abolishion of the monarchy, I am quite sure we would all end up having to wear drab blue uniforms, have a grey flag, eat boiled potatoes every day and sing a miserable durge instead of God Save the Queen!
I have been provided with not one single positive reason why we should become a republic, why an elected head-of-state is in any way shape or form more democratic than a monarch, or how they propose to deal with the issue of what to do when we end up with a complete dullard for a president - and "well at least he/she was democratically elected is NOT the answer I am looking for. I'm not waiting 50 years of successive presidential elections to finally get a president I like thank you very much!
How can they guarantee that I will like the president, his/her spouse/children? How can they guarantee that the president will not have sought the positition of head of state for his own political motives or for his own personal gain?
Further, exactly how does the British republic movement propose to replicate the national mood and joy of a major royal events such as the aforementioned weddings, jubilees, births etc?

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Do all monarchists and all anti-monarchists even share other political points of view? (About, for example, immigration?) I have always seen the monarchists, in particular, as rather a diverse group.

 

[COUNTESS]

Anti-monarchists just have a massive inferiority complex. The few I've met are a thoroughly miserable lot. Their so called movement has nothing to do with wanting a better country, as we would be far worse off without our Royal Family. What they want is to destroy what is left of Britain and all it's magnificent pomp and ceremony. Kill-joys indeed.

And *followed* as well.

Very strange point of view. As an American, I say good for you, if you all want this, but your Royal Family in many instances is a rum bunch and the waste is inordinate. Please, don't tell me how it costs 25 cents, it cost much more, but the sales pitch is good. The pomp etc. comes at a great cost, I know, 25 cents, but it is fun to watch and since I am not paying for it, enjoy.

 

[Osipi]

I had to shudder as I thought of the possibility that with the Royal Family being abolished in favor of a democratically elected head of state with all the hoopla of an election every four years with those skyrocketing costs of campaigns, the mudslinging and vapid promises, the Daily Mail and other rags would have a field day ripping people apart on a level never seen before.

 

[COUNTESS]

I had to shudder as I thought of the possibility that with the Royal Family being abolished in favor of a democratically elected head of state with all the hoopla of an election every four years with those skyrocketing costs of campaigns, the mudslinging and vapid promises, the Daily Mail and other rags would have a field day ripping people apart on a level never seen before.

You have that, now. How do you get government? Where do your members of Parliament come from? They do not run against others. Prime Minsters? Now, you pay for a family, good, bad and most of the time indifferent, no one can express an opinion about them, they are stuck. And costs, I know 25 cents, the best Tom Foolery in the world. And the have no real responsibilities, except waving. Don't tell me how they labor at ribbon cutting. Ask yourself what decisions and people they must deal with, outside the diplomatic occasions. And best still they support themselves with the lands their forebears took from the people, with jewels purloined from colonies. Crown property. No taxes between sovereigns, very ingenious. Tons of money never taxed, and making the very, very rich, very richer.

 

[Osipi]

You have that, now. How do you get government? Where do your members of Parliament come from? They do not run against others. Prime Minsters? Now, you pay for a family, good, bad and most of the time indifferent, no one can express an opinion about them, they are stuck. And costs, I know 25 cents, the best Tom Foolery in the world. And the have no real responsibilities, except waving. Don't tell me how they labor at ribbon cutting. Ask yourself what decisions and people they must deal with, outside the diplomatic occasions. And best still they support themselves with the lands their forebears took from the people, with jewels purloined from colonies. Crown property. No taxes between sovereigns, very ingenious. Tons of money never taxed, and making the very, very rich, very richer.

All I was trying to put out there is that without the Queen as an apolitical head of state, an election would have to be held for the Big Cheese spot and to be honest, its a time here in the US that I do not enjoy. I just really kind of like the idea that the head of state represents not only the people but ALL the people and not a political party or political platform. The House of Windsor may be an old, wealthy family but its one family that really isn't associated with power or influence on the government. Even with a republic, they'd still be an old, wealthy family.

No government is 100% perfect and as long as there's more than one person on this earth, there'll never be one.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

The Queen is not the equivalent of a President. She does not run an executive branch nor make foreign policy (and a host of other differences).

 

[Ish]

The Queen is not the equivalent of a President. She does not run an executive branch nor make foreign policy (and a host of other differences).

In some ways she is, in other ways she's not.

The Queen is the head of state. In that sense she is the equivalent of a president.

At the same time, the Queen is an apolitical being and the functions of office that would be carried out by a president are more or less carried out by a Prime Minister. In that sense, the PM is the equivalent of a president.

 

[vkrish]

All this confusion and clash because people compare the position of the British Head of State with US Head of State. They are same in none but name.
The British position is mostly similar to that of India, where the Prime Minister is the real boss, and the president is the "supposed boss". Here the President becomes completely apolitical and is strictly a symbolic figure, though he has all the "powers" that a British monarch has. There is a great chance of electing eminent individuals who have contributed immensely in various fields to the post of President. We have done so in the past, and will do it hopefully in future.
The CONS: since the election of President is mostly dependant on the ruling party (and opposition's mercy,sometimes), there is always a chance of some stooges occupying the highest seat..
But then I feel next to having a RF, this system is the best thing..
I always wonder why Austalia/Canada/etc. ect dont go for this. But then I am not familiar with their forms of government..

 

[Iluvbertie]

Australia's system is very very similar to that of the UK - replacing The Queen with the GG who is chosen by the PM and appointed by the Queen.

We had a vote in 1999 to have a president chosen by 2/3 majority of the parliament and that was defeated. The powers of the president were to remain the same as those of the GG today.

We may revisit the issue again after The Queen dies - but as the republicans can't actually agree on how to choose the president we may still have difficulties getting a republic as we need an agreed model to put to the Australian people.

 

[vkrish]

Nope. I am asking about how the GG is elected..If its like India's President (all members of both houses of Parliament, all State Assemblies, practically every elected representative is part of Electoral College, which elects the President).
Because I have read somewhere that the reason for delaying republic (even in the referendum) in Australia is not due to specific wish for Queen's reign, but due to lack of consensus on the proposed republic model.. I dont know how far its true, though.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

I'm a republican. It's appalling that the position of head of state is still hereditary in some modern democracies. .

Appalling? It is far more appalling to have a Head of State who, at best, was selected by 51% of the population, is a self-centered political animal who serves his party and contributors.

I think the problem would be justifying the tax increase, as monarchies generally have very high taxes, but provide its citizens more services, such as state healthcare. Denmark, for example, has almost a 50% income tax!

It is the elected government, not the monarchs who decide the tax rates. Put the blame exactly where it belongs. Michele Obama costs us far more than most members of a royal family.

This is a topic of considerable debate in my country. We held a referendum (defeated, obviously) to decide whether Australia should become a republic. There are still many republicans in Australia, however, and the debate certainly hasn't gone away.

The Australian (and New Zealand, Canadian etc) situation is complicated by the fact that our Queen doesn't live in our country and isn't a "citizen" of our nation. However, my personal opinion is that a constitutional monarchy has more reliable checks and balances, offers tradition and ritual (necessary for the functioning of a healthy society) and isn't prey to, or influenced by, the lure of the mighty dollar in the way that some republics seem to be.

I like being part of a constitutional monarchy, I like the continued ties QEII provides to Great Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth. Long live the Queen.

The tradition, the link with the mother country and the continuity are all wonderful things.

Most European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries would be better off with monarchs.

 

[MarriedtoaScot]

The problem with an elected "Head of State" is that about half the citizens didn't vote for them. From 1992 though 2004. We had a President that most Americans did not vote for. How does it make any sence to have an elected head of State that most people don't support?

In our last three elections we were about evenly divided. Which means 1/2 the people support the Head of State... with the other half hating him.

Not saying I prefer a Monarch, but the idea that an elected Head of State is preferable ignores cultural considerations. Every nation is different what works in one will not work in another.