The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 06-04-2014, 10:49 AM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,604
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, 05:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,468
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, 05:44 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,972
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, 09:48 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 153
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, 12:50 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,759
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!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 06-12-2014, 01:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 424
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, 03:28 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,759
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!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 06-12-2014, 06:11 PM
SElizabeth's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 596
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
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
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 PM
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 882 06-22-2014 07:19 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
Summer 2006 Newsletter: Featuring Queen Elizabeth II & The Duchess of Cornwall GrandDuchess Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs & Articles 56 07-25-2006 09:46 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]