Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
The way I see it, Britain wouldn't be Britain without the Monarchy and America wouldn't be America without the President.

I know many can argue up and down about the costs of these Heads of State and their families but I expect and accept that it's an expensive operation to run. I think it's all worth it, IMO.
 
A monarch represents tradition, continuity and the ability to reign while being above politics. He or she is beholden to the people.

A president, premier, prime minster, chancellor is simply someone who owes his soul to the men with money who put him in power.
 
Admiral Horthy said:
A monarch represents tradition, continuity and the ability to reign while being above politics. He or she is beholden to the people.

A president, premier, prime minster, chancellor is simply someone who owes his soul to the men with money who put him in power.
Click to expand...
You have hit the nail squarely on the head. The monarch definitely reigns at the will of the people.

Your observation of the dynamics of a political Head of State is, unfortunately and most uncomfortably, valid. The notion of a Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" is inherently flawed as each member of government owes their political position to the number of rich individuals and even richer industries willing to spend enough money to fund their campaigns. Their first alliegence is to those who paid for them and their second to the people who elected them.

I think I will definitely remain in "Camp Monarchy" where there is at least the illusion of altruism.
 
Admiral Horthy said:
A monarch represents tradition, continuity and the ability to reign while being above politics. He or she is beholden to the people.

A president, premier, prime minster, chancellor is simply someone who owes his soul to the men with money who put him in power.
Click to expand...

One thing I can attest to in regards to elected officials is that they're elected into office for a certain amount of time and by the time they actually get around to doing anything, its time to elect new ones. Go figure. :D
 
Admiral Horthy said:
A monarch represents tradition, continuity and the ability to reign while being above politics. He or she is beholden to the people.

A president, premier, prime minster, chancellor is simply someone who owes his soul to the men with money who put him in power.
Click to expand...
[my bolding]
Your observations are very very accurate. At the same time, I have to say that your observations about the elected politicians fully apply to the current reigning houses. A media image of a royal house shows its "tradition, continuity and the ability to reign while being above politics". However, a royal house relies on oppressive elements in a governmental system (riot police, military) to protect them from subjects they are beholden to. A royal house relies on its legislators, who derive some benefits from supporting the existing régime. This means that a monarch is a consensus figure that is supported by and relies on people behind a throne, who are owed by rich people.
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
One thing I can attest to in regards to elected officials is that they're elected into office for a certain amount of time and by the time they actually get around to doing anything, its time to elect new ones. Go figure. :D
Click to expand...

If we are lucky. Unfortunately they get reelected so they can finish up the damage they started.
 
Al_bina said:
[my bolding]
Your observations are very very accurate. At the same time, I have to say that your observations about the elected politicians fully apply to the current reigning houses. A media image of a royal house shows its "tradition, continuity and the ability to reign while being above politics". However, a royal house relies on oppressive elements in a governmental system (riot police, military) to protect them from subjects they are beholden to. A royal house relies on its legislators, who derive some benefits from supporting the existing régime. This means that a monarch is a consensus figure that is supported by and relies on people behind a throne, who are owed by rich people.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Whichever system a country has, I think the most important thing is that the Head of State should NOT be political. It fills me with horror every time there is a presidential election and one sees the head of state going on television telling his people that they should vote for him and then proceeding to dismiss half his own nation by slagging off the other candidate whom they support.
How awful it would be if ever we saw the Queen addressing the nation and dismissing those who would wish a republic, or telling us to vote for one political party over the other.
 
Admiral Horthy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
:previous: As opposed to a the ostensibly democraticly elected President elected because he had the the smartest lobbyists and the richest and most poweverful supporters.
 
Empress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MARG said:
:previous: As opposed to a the ostensibly democraticly elected President elected because he had the the smartest lobbyists and the richest and most poweverful supporters.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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 !
 
wyevale said:
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 !
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about it in that way before , but I do agree!
 
wyevale said:
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 !
Click to expand...
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.
 
Apart from the 1974 one, there have been quite a few referendums regarding the monarchy in Greece, most notably in 1920, 1924, 1935 and 1946. The vote went in favour of the monarchy in 1920, 1935 and 1946 and against in 1924 and 1974.

However, by proper democratic standards, most, if not all, of the above were highly suspect. In 1974, for example, the King wasn't even allowed into the country to campaign, being limited to a TV broadcast from abroad and in 1935, the vote was not even secret.
 
The Belgian referendum was not about a choice between Leopold III or Baudouin. It was King Leopold III himself (!) whom urged for a referendum, against the wish of the Government (!). The result was: 58% pro Leopold III and 42% against, but the regional diffferences were strong. In the whole of the Dutch speaking part, the King got a clear victory. In the French speaking part the King got a majority in the rural parts but in the more industrialized provinces of Liège and Namur he won no majority.

The King and the Government interpreted the result as a victory but strikes and riots broke out in the French speaking parts of the country. The situation went out of hand when during riots four demonstrators were killed by police bullets. The public opinion in the French speaking parts turned worse and worser. The King decided to abdicate in favour of his son Prince Baudouin.

So the referendum was not at all about monarchy vs republic. But about a return of the King in 1950. (From 1944 to 1950 the King's brother Prince Charles acted as Regent).
 
Many of the anti-royalists votes, such as Italy, Bulgaria and Romania, like Albania, were fraudulent.
 
The 1999 vote in Australia was a referendum not a plebiscite - in Australia they are different things.

A referendum is a vote to change the constitution and that was what the vote was in 1999.

A plebiscite is to gauge the public's support for an issue - such as the conscription issues in 1916 and 1917 (which are erroneously referred to in textbooks etc as referenda but they weren't binding on the government and so were plebiscites).
 
I've been looking into referendums of the last century to see how many can be classed as a "free and fair" vote in a stable political climate. If you exclude the ones that happened in the wake of destabilising situations such as war and revolution, it looks like a referendum is the least effective way to abolish a monarchy. In the last hundred years approximately 100 monarchies (national and sub-national) disappeared, most of them without even the pretence of electoral confirmation.

The 1960 South African referendum was not fair, as only whites were allowed to vote. Greece 1974 seems to comes close to being "free and fair", but it was not a secure political climate. So it looks like the Australian referendum of 1999 was about the only one to be held in a stable political climate, after the due process of a constitutional convention, and it was defeated.

Many of the world's monarchies are not politically stable, and, as history shows, nothing is more dangerous to a monarchy than war, revolution or a military coup (even if the monarchy is not the target of the unrest). They should not take anything for granted. But what about the likelihood of Europe's monarchies (and a few others like Japan) ever facing the boot? For these most democratic of nations, surely a referendum is the only way to relieve themselves of the services of their ruling family? Without a juicy scandal to kick start things, is a theoretical debate about an hereditary or elected head of state going to inspire a movement strong enough to bring on a referendum?
 
Here's another one for the free and fair category, and, again, it was defeated. Tuvalu 2008. Less than 25% of enrolled voters made an effort to cast a vote. Does indifference ultimately help maintain the status quo? If so, it could also be a major stumbling block for restoration movements.
 
Chubb Fuddler said:
Greece 1974 seems to comes close to being "free and fair", but it was not a secure political climate.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the 1974 Greek referendum cannot be regarded as free and fair when the King was not allowed to return to the country following the overthrow of the junta. During the referendum campaign, still banned from Greece, he was limited to a broadcast on Greek Television and sending messages. Had he been able to interact personally with the voters, explain his vision and address concerns, the result may not have been the same.

That said, maybe the decisive 70/30 result from a 75% turnout was what Greece needed and a more even split could have led to greater instability. The King's respect for the result was, in that light, a noble service to the country, echoing the actions of Umberto II of Italy in 1946.
 
I'm not sure what to make of the 1974 plebiscite. It seems to have been free, but fair? Certainly the King was at a disadvantage by not being allowed to return to Greece. But Mr Karamanlis did not take part in the campaign, nor did any members of the government, which contained supporters of both sides. It was left to the royalists and republicans to run their own campaign, and both sides were given equal television time to make their case. In theory it sounds fair enough, but there is one more important factor to consider: the influence of the person who sets the agenda on its outcome.

There was no legal or constitutional reason to hold a referendum or plebiscite on the monarchy. The parliament could have debated the issue and made a decision one way or the other without recourse to a popular vote. But Mr Karamanlis had other ideas. After the collapse of the colonels' regime in July 1974, Mr Karamanlis became leader of a government of national unity. He took control of the monarchy versus republic debate and set the agenda. He announced that parliamentary elections would take place in November, followed, just two week's later, by a plebiscite on the monarchy. He decided when the vote would take place, and what the question would be. He controlled the situation in order to give the result he wanted the best chance of success.*

The New Democracy party, with the support of its royalist members, obtained a large majority at the November elections. The plebiscite was next, and the new Prime Minister could afford to appear magnanimous and impartial by announcing that neither he nor any members of the government would take part in the campaign. It was quite an impressive display of political manoeuvring. Unfortunately, the King was no match for this seasoned politician.

I once read somewhere that republicans in Athens put up large posters of Queen Frederika, with the foreboding caption "I AM COMING BACK!" I wonder if it is true? It's interesting how close the results of the 1973 and 1974 plebiscites were. The plebiscite of 1973 was staged by the military regime to bolster their authority. The result was 75% for a republic, but it was considered a rigged result. But maybe it was, after all, an accurate reflection of Greek opinion. Less than 18 months later the free vote was 70% for a republic. I think King Constantine's decision to swear in the colonels in 1967 fundamentally undermined his reign. Even if he had returned to Greece to campaign, I doubt the result would have been much different.


* Tridimas, G. (2010). "Referendum and the choice between monarchy and republic in Greece." Constitutional Political Economy 21(2): 119-144.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I'm a monarchist. I've always been. I still have hope that the monarchy be restored in Portugal and other countries.
 
Last edited:
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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jihan
Discussion About The Fallen Dynasties
Replies
20
Views
961
SirGyamfi1
S
J
God Save the Queen anthem
Replies
0
Views
54
jf161
J
Somebody
The Princess of Orange's preparation for her role as queen
Replies
20
Views
3K
kalnel
K
Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
584
Blog Real
Blog Real
iceflower
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2023!
Replies
14
Views
980
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom