The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 06-04-2014, 11:49 AM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Horthy View Post
But the man or woman who inherits the crown is there by the grace of God, or by an accident of birth, which ever you prefer, and not at the whim of a fickle public or devious bankers. They didn't get there by chicanery.
It is akin closed ecosystem. The man or woman who inherits the crown is nothing without a proper support of those, who at the whim of devious bankers. You know those installed by devious bankers control fickle public, quell unrest, and maintain a régime of a man or woman who comfortably sits on a throne by the grace of God or by accident of birth.
__________________

__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 06-04-2014, 06:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,884
There are few monarchs, today, that reign. Most of the Western Monarchs of today, do nothing, but cut ribbons and represent their nations, as figureheads, while the "unsavory" jobs are done by the elected. No monarch is their by the Grace of God. Just a foolish thought. They are there, because some ancestors in the past had the biggest sword.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 06-05-2014, 06:44 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
As opposed to a the ostensibly democraticly elected President elected because he had the the smartest lobbyists and the richest and most poweverful supporters.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 06-12-2014, 10:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress View Post
Well, speaking as an American, I would like to throw in my two cents. I think that the Queen of England has acted as a fantastic bridge between goverments. She is a steady and reliable source of what has happened in the past and a great fount of information, and perhaps even wisdom.

I would say that having someone in that position, in the USA, and perhaps other countries, that could act as a bridge would be great. In the USA we have a different administration every 4-8 years, and that does create a bit of a cracked sidewalk, to say the least. There is no real constant that can be a hand holder, or even just a sympathetic ear.
The UK also has a different government, by law every 5 years, although elections sometimes are held before that and, sometimes, prime ministers stay in office longer than the duration of one parliament (Tony Blair e.g. was PM for 10 years and Margaret Thatcher, for over 11 years).

In any case, though, the Queen doesn't really provide any "bridge" between governments as royalists claim, simply because she doesn't really have any influence whatsoever on government policy. Due to the adversarial nature of British politics (far less consensual than in the US) and the lack of "checks and balances", changes in government policy are actually quite sharp and abrupt when a Labour government succeeds a Conservative one, or vice-versa.

The main element of continuity in British public administration is therefore not the Queen, who, as I said, is not part of the administration, except in a cerimonial capacity, but rather IMHO the professional civil service, who is subject to the political guidelines set out by the ministers, but is permanent (i.e doesn't change with elections) and, in theory, is also non-partisan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 06-12-2014, 01:50 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
As opposed to a the ostensibly democraticly elected President elected because he had the the smartest lobbyists and the richest and most poweverful supporters.
I tend to agree - in order to become a president, you also have to have the ambition to get yourself there, which tends to focus your mind on yourself too much rather than the people you are supposed to represent. Ambitious people seeking high office tend not to be the the best people in charge of a country.
It cannot possibly be any more democratic to have this situation than it is to have a monarch, who for all intents and purposes does not require the traits of ambition and can focus on doing a good job.
In my book, such as it is, democratically elected means the person who received the most votes from the population rather than the complicated systems of elections and voting we often see. Majority to mind mind means at least 60%, preferably 75%. Someone gaining 51% shouldn't really see themselves as being democratically elected, because there is too greater proportion of people who voted the other way. It is a continual bugbear of one that successive UK governments have come to power on as little as 35 - 39%! Outrageous!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 06-12-2014, 02:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,663
The CRITICAL difference IMO is that in a Monarchy the [titular] TOP spot isn't up for grabs, so no amount of money grubbing, underhand shenanigens, lobbying or straightforward politiking will get you there.

The Monarch is above politics, and so all shades of opinion can coalesce around a national figure who provides a centrepiece during national celebrations or tragedies.

Some countries try to manage with a flag, or a politician... but really it is not the same !
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 06-12-2014, 04:28 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
The CRITICAL difference IMO is that in a Monarchy the [titular] TOP spot isn't up for grabs, so no amount of money grubbing, underhand shenanigens, lobbying or straightforward politiking will get you there.

The Monarch is above politics, and so all shades of opinion can coalesce around a national figure who provides a centrepiece during national celebrations or tragedies.

Some countries try to manage with a flag, or a politician... but really it is not the same !
I hadn't thought about it in that way before , but I do agree!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 06-12-2014, 07:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
The CRITICAL difference IMO is that in a Monarchy the [titular] TOP spot isn't up for grabs, so no amount of money grubbing, underhand shenanigens, lobbying or straightforward politiking will get you there.

The Monarch is above politics, and so all shades of opinion can coalesce around a national figure who provides a centrepiece during national celebrations or tragedies.

Some countries try to manage with a flag, or a politician... but really it is not the same !
And it will Never be the same, neither flag nor politician can make the difference. What I find is that when there tons of people crying/yelling/protesting for a republic are the ones that are the most uneducated of the people, they are being used by the republics telling these uneducated people what to do all the time. From what I have read and seen in the news of the people crying for a republic is that they seem to think that once a republic, *All their problems will be solved, there will be no unemployment, plenty of jobs with better salaries, food for all and every table, better medical care, no more homelessness, all the problems will be gone and then............reality hits and whoa what happened*. Some groups that want control of a country could care less about the people and I have lived through that and still do. I think a monarchy is great for the people as long as it relates to/takes care of/ and supports the people to the best of their ability. After all, in Europe, it's your history and I don't believe in getting rid of a monarchy just for the sake of being a republic, after all, who is going to represent you on the world stage and there must be a figurehead to do that. There in the US, we have a president, and each 4 years you never know who is going to do the job and we have had some real loonies in the position. I total support a monarch and have no problem with one, it's just the politicians that lie all the time and try to take all they can from the people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 08-24-2016, 08:33 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 440
What I find interesting about the discourse of republicanism in the anglosphere is firstly the cultural cringe that comes out so strongly and the fact that it's often based on feelings of inferiority for ones own country and culture. eg '[insert country one has a fetish for - normally a EU member state or good ol' Eagleland] is a republic and is wealthier/more powerful/more culturally sophisticated/more left wing/more right wing etc than us; therefore we should be one too as this will fix our problems and we will be taken more seriously on the world stage etc...'. The line 'we need to grow up' is very common. This particular line of thinking seems to be the most common in the UK and Commonwealth realms - republicanism as far as I can tell has a more utilitarian basis in continental Europe with some anti clerical untertones, or related to broader political gulfs between the left and the right.*

I was thinking about this following the brexit referendum and I was very interested in how a lot of prominent remainers were also often republicans and how many of them based their arguments on the idea that britains culture was inferior to 'europe's' and how frequently the monarchy was cited as a factor in this perceived backwardness and unsophistication and how the EU was the only way the country could be saved from itself. the main line being something Tom Nairn called 'the glamour of backwardness'; I myself don't really buy this line of thinking as it overlooks a number of other factors namely the structure of the political system (first past the post voting, lack of thorough going devolution and weak local government, an unelected upper house with bishops - the only other country with a similar upper house I believe is Iran, etc...)** and the fact that transparent and respresntative local government can go coexist with monarchy - the real problem lies with the politicians. Having not been defeated in either of the two world wars is also a major factor as victory in war can do a lot to enhance a goverments legitmacy It's also interesting how these arguments are very similar to those put forward in the Commonwealth realms esp Australia but to a lesser extent NZ and Canada, but 'independence' is the watch word instead of 'backwardness'.

I myself am open to republican ideas but I find this line of thinking a major turnoff as it insults a lot of people needlessly and does more harm than good. How does this compare to anyone else's experiences or views about the monarchy v republic debate?

*I don't know enough about the ME or Asian monarchies to make any definitive judgments I feel confident about as its not something I know enough about as that's based on a different set of political perimeters but feel free to talk about if you want to.

**thats not to say that there hasn't been change - on the contrary there has been plenty such as mass sufferage, the rise of mass urban political movements, Irish independence, end of empire, the decline of the aristocracy as a political force and the rise of middle class technocrats as the main policy makers, entry and now it seems exit from the EU.... Really I could go on...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 08-25-2016, 08:38 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 440
A few more notes about republicanism and some that may be worth reading:

* The book Ornamentalism by David Cannadine (not Carridine) is a little hit and miss but has a lot of really stimulating ideas about not only the nature of twentieth century constitutional monarchy and its relationship to empire, but also how a parallel order based in the urban areas and around professionalism and those who did not fit into orderly 'traditional' society based on the rural areas and empire - a must read for anyone wanting to understand the intellectual underpinning behind a lot of republican and monarchist thinking in the English speaking world, as well as the origins of the intellectual divide between europhiles and euroskeptics/phobes.

* For a really good example of the 'cultural cringe' I was talking about above, Jonathan Freedland's Bring Home the Revolution. Although it's advertised as being about how American republican thinking was in fact British in origin and therefore should be 'repatriated' it's mostly in fact about how American democracy is great (it was written in the Bush era no less and Freedland's writes for the Guardian) and how the UK is backward and still feudal and's a laughingstock blah blah blah.... Although some like it it hasn't aged well but has a lot to say about the mindset and line of thought I was describing in the previous post.

* Other examples could include the works of Johann Hari, Stephen Hastler and Tom Nairn (although to give Nairn his due, he has had a lot of sophisticated and intelligent things to say about the nature of the U.K, Celtic nationalism, the EU, and the decline of the British empire etc... I'm actually being unfair to Nairn, he's better than these clowns...) oh and pretty much anything penned by a 'serious' journalist after Diana died.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 08-25-2016, 08:50 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,920
I'm a monarchist. I've always been. I still have hope that the monarchy be restored in Portugal and other countries.
__________________
Acclamation Manuel II of Portugal: 6 May 1908
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 10-12-2016, 12:55 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 440
This is from 5 years ago but is interesting about the monarchy vs republic debate

http://www.nextleft.org/2011/04/why-...ymore.html?m=1

A longer version of the same article

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...uld-love-queen

The man who wrote them is a former republican and his take on why in the UK republicanism had not gained any real support is very interesting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 10-12-2016, 03:48 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 312
Surely the disastrous US presidential election cycle this time is making constitutional monarchy seem like a wise choice. Who needs all of this trashiness to pick a Head of State? (Head of government does, of course, need to be chosen by the voters.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Surely the disastrous US presidential election cycle this time is making constitutional monarchy seem like a wise choice. Who needs all of this trashiness to pick a Head of State? (Head of government does, of course, need to be chosen by the voters.)
I am in total agreement with you CSENYC that this current presidential election in the US has turned totally into a three ring circus with the public as spectators sitting back munching on popcorn and peanuts watching the insults, the innuendos and the mud flying back and forth and wondering what the next bit bit of "nasty" to come out will be.

It does make a constitutional monarchy look so much better as then you have the government bodies that have their own parties and their own platforms and agendas while the public has a spectacular family (this is referring to the UK of course) that has a much beloved elderly monarch and her family that represents all things that are British and no one does traditions and pageantry quite like the British do. Rather than a circus, Britain has something special that instills a strong sense of national pride and leaves the politics totally out of it.

I still remember how I smiled and chuckled when the article was posted here about the man in the US somewhere wrote a letter to HM, The Queen and begged her to take the US back again. HM responded to that letter also in the very kind and diplomatic manner that she has perfected over the years.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:08 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 7,484
I love reading about European monarchies, but I don't necessarily want to live under one.

However, I agree with everyone who has posted that the U.S. presidential election of 2016 has turned into a nightmare worthy of Kafka. It's not even funny how embarrassing and depressing this thing has become.

I think of my parents and grandparents and the caliber of candidates available for them to choose from during their presidential election cycles...men like Adlai Stevenson, FDR, Harry Truman and Eisenhower and JFK and Rockefeller and...heck even Richard Nixon. No matter what you thought of him there is no doubt that he was a brilliant politician and a true statesman.

How I envy past generations of the American electorate!.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:41 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,661
And little did I know that one presidential election cycle would be billed as peanuts and popcorn which was Ronald Reagan (Hollywood star and popcorn) vs. Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer from Georgia).

Little did I ever know or imagine.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Surely the disastrous US presidential election cycle this time is making constitutional monarchy seem like a wise choice. Who needs all of this trashiness to pick a Head of State? (Head of government does, of course, need to be chosen by the voters.)
To go one step further, after all the mutual trashing of the candidates (inherent to a partisan political campaign), how can they keep the untarnished image that would be desirable to perform the ceremonial duties of the Head of State ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 10-12-2016, 05:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 215
If anything, the benefits of a monarchy are becoming more evident as this century goes on. The farcical US Presidential campaign illustrates how sick the system there is and in France, where the pre-campaign is going on at the moment, with ancient rivalries and feuds simmering just below the surface and the faint whiff of corruption in the air, the same is true. Election campaigns divide people into them and us, right and left, for and against to the point that whoever wins also loses (by which I mean "loses" those who were opposed to his/her victory).

Having a Head of State who is not Head of Government and/or who is also not indebted to those who helped him/her get elected as Head of State means that even in the most conflictual times in the life of a country, there is a figure who is above the fray, a point of reference for all, a symbolic reminder that beyond the debates and the disputes, the country/society/nation - with its past, its present and its future - remains.

This links closely with Wyevale's excellent point about a monarch preventing the "top job" from being up for grabs by self-serving politicians. It's not hard to argue how much more difficult it would have been for Hitler to Nazify Germany if the Wittelsbachs were still on a Bavarian throne, for example.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 10-12-2016, 05:15 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
And little did I know that one presidential election cycle would be billed as peanuts and popcorn which was Ronald Reagan (Hollywood star and popcorn) vs. Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer from Georgia).

Little did I ever know or imagine.
IN the UK it was billed as choosing between a peanut farmer and an out of work actor.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 10-12-2016, 05:39 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,661
You know, until I joined TRF and starting talking to all the people here, I never realized that the US presidential elections even were of a tad bit of interest around the world. Then again, I didn't know even a little tad bit about a constitutional monarchy either.

No wonder I never leave here.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
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
Hello, here I am. My interest is the future of monarchies. Mr. Midgard Member Introductions 1 06-29-2008 09:26 PM
The future Monarchies In Spain And Belgium marmi Royalty Past, Present, and Future 4 10-10-2007 04:33 PM
Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip: State Visits to Baltic Republics - Oct 16-20, 2006 Skydragon Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 87 10-23-2006 03:13 PM




Popular Tags
birthday british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria hats current events denmark duchess of brabant duchess of cambridge earl of snowdon family general news grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín jewels king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon love monarchy monarchy versus republic news official visit paris prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen silvia question soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria zog



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises