The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:23 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,663
I'm not surprised by your experience at the Party Duc_et_Pair, In my experience the affluent Upper Middle Classes [particularly if in 'academe'] affect to despise the Royal Family, whilst the Middle-Middle and Lower-Middle Classes are more supportive.The Working Classes are pretty solid in their support [and always have been].
It is difficult to generalise of course, but given the alternative - a President Blair [or equivalent], barring a MAJOR change of heart, the Monarchy is the 'preferred' form of Government for most people. It HAS served us well, and people look abroad and 'don't like what they see'.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: West Bloomfield, United States
Posts: 14
You know, as an American, I can see that there are some disadvantages to a monarch as head of state but in many ways I think it is a better system than the one we have in the United States.

First the president is supposed to be both head of government and head of state. Being the head of government is already a big job in itself and there are times when the two jobs conflict; there was a brouhaha a few years ago, for example, when then-president Obama did not attend a memorial service at (I think it was) Auschwitz because he had to meet with the leader of Saudi Arabia instead. Someone else from the administration went, but it made people angry. Because those kinds of things come up I think it would be better if we separated head of government and head of state.

But the bigger problem, to my mind, is that when you vote for the head of state and the other person wins, especially when there is an unusually bitter campaign, it's difficult to feel that the head of state represents you. A few months ago when there was the apartment fire in London, my husband and I watched the Queen and Prince William meeting with the people who'd lost their homes and I said to him at the time, "If something like that happened here, to us, and the president came I couldn't deal with it. If he showed up I would feel actively worse." (I'm not saying that to be political, just to illustrate the problem when you have an unusually divisive head of state.)

The best thing about the monarchy in the UK, to my mind, is that people don't choose the monarch, and the monarch doesn't take political positions publicly, which means in theory that she belongs to all the people equally. It's not a perfect system, but I'm not sure what would be. I've seen proposals here in the US that we separate head of state from head of government and make it an electable position with, say, a twenty-year term so that the bitterness of the campaign fades, and maybe that would work. But I do see definite advantages to an apolitical monarchy.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:42 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I am not after power or greed and I find describing republicans that was insulting - as I am sure you meant it to be.

(...)

UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have. Like it or not we have to accept someone based simply on who their parents are and then have to accept whomever they choose as their consort regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they may be to represent us.

We also have a situation where the future King of Australia and his siblings in a number of different generations actively supports teams playing Australia and that is unacceptable. William even lead the campaign against Australia to host the World Cup. Imagine if Australia had won the rights to the 2022 World Cup and William was king by then and he had to come to it - the ultimate hypocrisy.

(...)

I wonder how Frozen Royalist would feel if they didn't get to have a say in their Head of State every four years. It is easy to admire something you don't have to live with but for those of us who do and want to change there is not need to be insulting about us but accept that we have our reasons and mine are simple - I want a Head of State who lives and works only for Australia and not for any other nation. I don't want a person appointed by some foreigner but by the people of Australia. I don't even care if that person was born in Australia - so long as they are a citizen of Australia and Australia only.
The system of having (essentially) a UK monarch also be the monarch of other countries indeed results in complicated issues as the UK's interests are not necessarily the same of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to name the largest ones). So, I understand that people within these countries are not that supportive of having a head of state that hardly ever is in your own country. Instead of becoming republics an alternative could be to stay monarchies but with their own monarch (in my fantasy world I once figured we could divide Canada, Australia and New Zealand among the Queen's other children). That would at least solve part of the issue.

Regarding the partners, I am in favour of some parliamentary control (as we have in the Netherlands). A system in which only the monarch (and sometimes in theory the government) seems less able to weed unsuitable candidates out. Of course, the born prince or princess could still marry but would loose his/her rights to the throne by doing so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:21 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 761
Iluvbertie:
First my apologizes to you about Republicans, I worded my comment wrong for I should of said I am very disgusted with American Republicanism. Yet I do get sick of the ugly backlash against HM, she was born into this position and did not ask for it yet she made the very best of it and has made great changes within the monarch over time. I respect and admire her very much and what she has done and respect is not a given in my book just because a person has money, power or title, it is how you treat others in life.

By the way, I seriously doubt HM sits down and personally invest money anywhere......she has advisors that do that type of thing and since there is lots of investments around the world and tons of financial reports to go through, I bet she is not even aware of where it all is at this time in her life. Can anyone imagine how many reports that would be each day or month....would take an army of people to go through all it I would think. Not just one tiny bank account here or investment there..........like I have. I don't think that should be held against her at all....

As for men in power that sleep with women half their age.........that has been going on since the beginning of time and it is not ever going to change in any one life time now or later.......again just human nature at one of it's worst habits yet not the worst either.

This I will say, I am totally disgusted and fed up with my *Congress* here, have been saying this for many decades now. The job of being president is to me just a person that sits in that chair and does what *Congress* says, he has IMHO no real power. He jumps to the tune of congress who are IMHO a bunch of greedy soulless group of people all out for them selves and no one else and this is for all the Democrats and Republicans alike. Regardless of who is sitting in that chair right now, or last term, this country is broken and that is for the poor, the middle class (what is left of it), the military and the homeless. The rest live off the fat of what their investments in foreign countries bring to the table with tons of huge tax credits in their back pocket (none of those tax credits ever come to the rest of this country)........and believe I do not want to get started on my dislike of companies in this country for I have written enough letters to CEO's and congress through my life time to fill a book.

I believe everyone should have a right to say who governs your country and in every monarchy or world leader and their family there will always be the ones that are thinking that they are above the law of the land. There will always be those that will get in the door the back way, that to me is just human nature at one of it's worst traits but not the worst.

I think it is disgusting and ignorant for anyone to deface any monument that is out there for people to see, that monument is for all the people not just a select few. In this country they are now taking away monuments of the past.........there is no way in H*ll a person can erase the past of their counties heritage by taking away a monument.......the past is just what it is and is in history forever.

Anyhow one thing I have learned in reading all those history books that I have, every kingdom, empire and world power today will all at one time crumble to dust and vanish in time when greed and corruption take over be they a monarchy or not......happening as we speak in many countries around the world, slowly but surly.

I do admire all that education that you have, that to me is priceless and as you read this I am sure you know that I am not like that for I let other things get in the way of what I call...life!

And no I do not like the word.......Republic or Democrat either......so what is left for the people?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:36 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,661
After reading Iluvbertie's post, I decided to delve into getting a bit more information about how the UK government works and to be honest, I do like it a whole lot better than the party system here in the US.

Parliament does have its separate parties in the House of Commons but with electing a MP in each constituency and the party with the majority in the House of Commons forms the government. Then there's the House of Lords that scrutinizes and checks and challenges the work of the government. They work independent of each other but for the same goals. With the US elected members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, party politics come into play during the election, stay in play during their terms and more often than not, they are more concerned with what the other party is doing than actually working with each other to get things done. At least that is how it seems to me.

I think that having an apolitical head of state such as the Queen is does far more for the unification and the continuity of a system of government than having an elected head of state. With no real constitutional powers such as the US president has "executive orders", the Queen warns and advises but does not interfere. She represents each and every one of the citizens.

I think anyone taking a good long look at the US system today will agree that our head of state is anything but representative of *all* the people. There are just too many divisions and it starts with a very division between party politics right out the election campaign starting gate. Us against Them.

At least with the Queen of the UK and Commonwealth countries, you have a Queen that is everybody's Queen and a very beloved one at that. Take that away and all you are left with is politics. Politics divide a realm. People have stated they're worried that Charles may be too "political". Imagine if everything to do with the country ends up being political.

Having an elected head of state is not going to bring costs down and to be honest, I think it would drive the cost of the government up.

From the Washington Post:

The final price tag for the 2016 election is in: $6.5 billion for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org. The presidential contest — primaries and all — accounts for $2.4 billion of that total. The other $4 billion or so went to congressional races.

That's just the election alone.
__________________
“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
  #406  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:52 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,663
All this seems true [to me] Osipi, and the division inevitable in a system with a [Political] Head of State is replicated in any places elsewhere. In France for example, MANY feel that their President does not, and cannot represent them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:54 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 761
Opisi:
Again you have said it so much better then I could have, and I totally agree with all your points and facts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:54 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,359
Does that include all the personal finances used by the candidates in their own campaigns?


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 11-25-2017, 04:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
.
To truly live in a democracy the people have to have a say in all the people who are the face of the nation and that really does apply to the Head of State.
I believe that, in a democracy, people should have a say in who governs them, and should be able to change the government periodically if they so wish in free and fair elections. Generally speaking, that is true in most European monarchies today. I don't think, however, that the people should necessarily have a say in who the ceremonial Head of State is. In fact, an opposing case can be made that the unelected nature of the office of Head of State is precisely what guarantees that the office remains non-partisan and politically neutral, as it should be expected from a ceremonial position.

In any case, in many supposedly democratic republics, the Head of State is not chosen by the people anyway. The president of the Federal Republic of Germany is elected for example by a federal convention consisting of members of the Lower House of Parliament and representatives of the state (Länder) parliaments. Even in the US, the original intention of the so-called Founding Fathers was that the president would be chosen by the states, which would appoint the electors in the Electoral College , rather than being elected by the people. The fact that all states now link the slate of their respective electors to a statewide popular election gives the misleading impression that there is national popular election for POTUS, but that is technically not the case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 11-25-2017, 04:55 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
Wow, did I scare people away with my rants, sorry guys.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. IMO I think support is probably returning to normal levels since the whole "paradise papers" thing is now mainly focused on the other elite rather than the Her Majesty, honestly though would it hurt for people to do proper research.
Wow! Another American who is angered by republicanism-- despite living in a republic-- as I am!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:04 PM
Frozen Royalist's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 77
Well I'm not really angered, just rather annoyed that things just keep spiraling into undemocratic territories in my opinion. I mean Trump was elected by the Electoral College not popular vote and don't tell me that this isn't controversial like my classmates. I mean you don't see this in the UK do you and don't get me started on gerrymandering.

-Frozen Royalist
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:32 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
Well I'm not really angered, just rather annoyed that things just keep spiraling into undemocratic territories in my opinion. I mean Trump was elected by the Electoral College not popular vote and don't tell me that this isn't controversial like my classmates. I mean you don't see this in the UK do you and don't get me started on gerrymandering.

-Frozen Royalist
Yes - it is possible in a system like the UK and Aus for the party with the most votes to not be able to form a government as it comes down to number of seats and not number of votes just as it did in the last US election.

We get 'hung' parliaments where neither side has a majority and then has to do deals with minor parties, often going against election promises to gain power. This is the very problem that could be confronting Queensland following yesterday's vote as it is possible that neither major party will get the required 47 seats to form a majority government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 11-26-2017, 04:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Why? So long as it is the theory that is being discussed rather than the individuals there should be no problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 11-26-2017, 04:23 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,922
Please note that posts (and responses) relating to American Politics / remarks about Obama and Trump have been deleted.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 12-01-2017, 10:46 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 215
Having had the good fortune to live in two parliamentary monarchies and two republics, my preference is for a parliamentary monarchy. To me, it serves to separate the business of "government" from the "whole life" of a society/nation or state.

It's right and proper, in my view, that a society should be "governed" by people it chooses and who are accountable to it, in the form of direct democratic elections (and an independent judiciary).

However, while a government - and its head - is one thing, a head of state should be seen a something else. Here, it's not about making & executing decisions or choices, doing what has to/should be done accoridng to one party point of view but being a collective symbol/representative/embodiment of the whole: the people(s), the culture(s), heritage & traditions, the history, the land, the "spirit" & values of a society.

It's true that a "ceremonial" president could occupy this rôle and there are examples of those who have performed it very well. I also accept that some societies would consider that electing this person is a statement of values in itself. Yet a monarchy, backed up by the concept of a royal family (of different ages, at different stages in life, with different interests & characters) is more 'comprehensive' in its coverage and reach.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:02 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,922
Please note that this thread has had a title change having previously been the Monarchy-V-Republic thread. As well as discussing the various positives and negatives of monarchies and republics, you may also discuss the benefits of having either one or the other along with the possible future of monarchies and/or republics throughout the world.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The system of having (essentially) a UK monarch also be the monarch of other countries indeed results in complicated issues as the UK's interests are not necessarily the same of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to name the largest ones). So, I understand that people within these countries are not that supportive of having a head of state that hardly ever is in your own country.
I don't think the issue you raise is relevant because, in practice, everything that the Queen does in the UK is done in Australia, Canada or New Zealand by the Governor General, including advancing the realm's interests in oveseas trade missions, and in state or official visits. In fact, for the realms, the choice between a republic or the continuation of the monarchy is not really about replacing the Queen as Head of State, but rather, in practical terms, about replacing the well-tested office of Governor General with an elected president who would be a big leap in the dark.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 12-01-2017, 08:29 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't think the issue you raise is relevant because, in practice, everything that the Queen does in the UK is done in Australia, Canada or New Zealand by the Governor General, including advancing the realm's interests in oveseas trade missions, and in state or official visits. In fact, for the realms, the choice between a republic or the continuation of the monarchy is not really about replacing the Queen as Head of State, but rather, in practical terms, about replacing the well-tested office of Governor General with an elected president who would be a big leap in the dark.
I agree that in practical terms the governor-general will be replaced, however, exactly because of that I understand why these countries are more likely to become republics. They don't have the benefit of having a royal family 'in-house' but instead a GG who is replaced after a few years and another is nominated. So, they don't have the advantages that come with a monarchy (such as having an active representation by a royal family - the consistency etc.) nor those that come with a republic (such as some say in who your head of state is).
__________________

__________________
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 02:55 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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