The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 06-25-2007, 04:34 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
You haven't really got the hang of this have you? It's a debate about Monarchy and Republic - the point is to raise questions about aspects of both and simply saying "Because it is that way", doesn't make it right. I know it's that way, that's why I'm raising the point.

Quote:
Well we still do not have the Scottish Republic or the Republic England but the United Kingdom, with all its logics and unlogics which add to the charms of it.


I know we don't have the Scottish Republic or the Republic of England - that's what I'm saying. Should we and what would it be like it we did?

Quote:
You can put question marks to everything. Why should the Dutch Queen wear a long robe and travel in a Golden State Carriage to Parliament? Why can't she take a car?
Quote:
Why is there a lavish State Banquet in the Palais de l'Elysée when the president of Germany visits the president of France? Can't the good man simply take his German friend to a bistro at Boulevard Montparnasse?


Everything that happens with a monarchy can basically happen with a Republic. We can still have the sashes and pretty gowns but they'll be donned by the President or First Lady instead of a Queen. Ascot can still happen but it'll be the President who makes his way onto the course in the carriage. We can still have honours lists and we can still have parades and a grand state opening of parliament - but it could be a President not a Queen who does the opening. State banquets are important to diplomacy and as you have just proved - they can be done by Presidents just as well as Monarchs. The point of the thread is to debate the pros and cons of monarchy and republic, not to tell us what a monarchy is.

As to this claim that it's traditional, so was hanging but we got rid of that. Simply because something is traditional, doesn't make it right for the modern age and when one looks at it, nothing the monarch does can't be done by the President.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-25-2007, 05:14 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Aha. And therein lies the conundrum. I suppose one takes the rough the smooth and if there's a dodgy president in office, you use your vote to get them out which in the case of a dodgy King or Queen you can't do.
Indeed, but if you have a very good president in office in a situation with term limits, you lose a good leader after a few years. And if you don't have term limits, an unscrupulous leader can last even longer than some monarchs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-25-2007, 05:23 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Why can't you swear loyalty to a President though?
Because the president, however s/he gets there, is usually representing a political party. Whether it's overt like in the USA or indirect when a government (which usually consists of the majority party) elects an elder statesman, who's often a retired politician, your head of state reflects the mood of the moment far more than a monarch does. And I for one wouldn't want to swear loyalty to a president who supported a political party I didn't support, because I think that forces a person's conscience. Once a country becomes a reflection of the political party that happens to be in power, you're in for some very divisive experiences.

Quote:
For that matter, why does it have to be the troops swearing loyalty to a person - why not just their country? If it's a tradition to have people play-acting the parts of soldiers when they actually aren't, it's a tradition we're best out of.
But what do you mean by swearing loyalty to a country? There has to be a symbol that represents the country, whether it's a flag, a monarch, a supposed national characteristic, or something. Personally I'd prefer to swear loyalty to a monarch than to some superannuated politician posing as a statesman and pretending to represent people we all know he doesn't really represent. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, but you're in for deep trouble if you depend on having the system throw up the exceptions rather than the run-of-the-mill party hacks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-25-2007, 06:12 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Because the president, however s/he gets there, is usually representing a political party.
Ah but in the Latvian model, the President isn't political. Indeed, Vaira Vike-Frieberga was chosen because she had an incredible career but she'd also never been involved with a political party and so the President there isn't just another politician, it's something quite different. You raise a good point though because if we had an American system, I'd have serious problems. I could happily give my loyalty and allegiance to someone like Hilary Clinton but I couldn't do it with George Bush and so maybe if we have a President, a President has to be totally politically impartial.

Quote:
But what do you mean by swearing loyalty to a country? There has to be a symbol that represents the country, whether it's a flag, a monarch, a supposed national characteristic, or something.
I agree. What I meant was that it isn't nessecary to swear allegiance or loyalty to a person at all. A flag would do just as well if people felt they couldn't swear allegiance to a President. But with an impartial President I don't know if that would be an issue. Whether it's a flag or whatever, I think this idea that we could only ever swear allegiance to the monarch is incorrect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-07-2007, 09:32 AM
FarahJoy's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Somewhere, Spain
Posts: 64
Do you think that there is a difference in daily life ?

Are people's behaviors different whether they live in a kingdom or a democracy ?

__________________
Try and leave this world a little better than you found it. Lord Robert Baden-Powell
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-07-2007, 10:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
A Constitutional Monarchy (Kingdom) is a Democracy, so I'm not quite sure what it is you mean.

An Absolute Monarchy, however...
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-21-2007, 07:25 AM
Attaining Grace's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 140
Hello everyone,

I'm an Australian too, KelliB, and I absolutely agree with you. I'll be very sad if Australia becomes a republic and I really don't see the point. I think that it's just part of a hidden agenda by certain people here.

I like living in a constitutional monarchy because the Royal Family is apart from politics and represents stability, tradition and heritage. Many more republics have had civil wars than monarchies. I don't like the idea of having a President here at all.

In fact it's almost enough to make me try to become an English citizen!

Best Regards,
Attaining Grace
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-23-2007, 10:50 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 505
Very interesting question, one I'm not sure I know how to answer. On the one hand, I like the tradition and continuity which a monarch offers. On the other, I like the fact that I'm not regarded as a subject and can control my own destiny.

You asked if certain countries are best suited for a republic, I think that's true. I can't really imagine the US as a monarchy because our founding principles were born out of a necessity to move away from British rule. And France had a choice and decided that was not the best system for them.

In the end, what we were taught influenced our thinking, and therefore we become a product of our own history. Would I choose England over the US? It’s hard to say – the grass looks greener on the other side sometimes, but the idealist in me knows that no system is perfect.

By the way, what a fantastic article!
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-13-2007, 05:16 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post

By the way, what a fantastic article!
Thankyou!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-23-2007, 05:42 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 43
I prefer Monarchy over a republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-23-2007, 07:29 PM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
This is a great debate and one that my husband and I discuss in depth whenever the subject of being a republic rears it's ugly head in Australia.
I am not a staunch royalist by any means but I do think that the Monarchy works just fine and I think that 'if it aint' broke, don't fix it'.
The cost involved in Australia becoming a republic would be phenominal and I honestly don't see that it can be justified.
As attaininggrace mentioned this subject in Australia is someone's hidden agenda and has been for many years. Hopefully nothing will ever come of it.
__________________
Everyone is born right-handed, only the gifted overcome it!!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,440
I assume that Austrailia will become a republic, if the majority wishes it to be. This is, certainly, a decision for Austrailians. I have no idea of the costs either way. I am an American and feel that we have had bad presidents, good presidents, dumb presidents, etc. {political dig deleted - Elspeth} it isn't the person it is the ideal that is important. Perhaps, you have to learn that when you are young. It is not an idealaism (if there is such a word), it is a knowledge that this man shall pass. There are bad monarchs and good, dumb, etc. But monarchs stay for their lifetimes in many instances, unless you have a revolution. So monarchy has greater drawbacks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-24-2007, 12:44 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
That might be the case if monarchs had the same sort of executive powers that presidents do, especially presidents of countries without parliamentary systems. As it stands in the UK, the Queen can't create the same sort of damage that could potentially be created by a US president making a series of bad foreign-policy decisions, so the notion of having a bad king for 20 years isn't, at least to me, as much of a drawback as the notion of having a bad president for 8 years.

One of the main advantages of monarchy is the way party politics is separated from the position of Head of State, and another is the continuity of the position of monarch and the ability to have a longer-term view of things than is usually held by politicians with their eyes on the next election.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-24-2007, 05:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Madison, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
The majority of the American people would not welcome a monarchy either as an absolute or even a constitutional monarchy as we were raised to believe (maybe naively) in electing a person to lead us. I do think it is too bad that we could not have an elected leader to handle the business of running the country and a royal family to represent us and handle the good will and diplomacy. The same would be nice with other countries where the monarchy has been abolished. Keep the elected leaders and let the royal families act as ambassadors. Perhaps the citizens do not want to be under the rule of a monarch simply because of luck of their birth, but who better to represent the best side of the people of a nation.
Keep in mind that a monarchy does not always need to be hereditary. Perhaps the United States would be more keen to an elective monarchy. Americans would elect an impartial citizen to serve as their monarch and head of state for life. And to make sure that the throne stayed a neutral institution, it would be a requirement that candidates for the crown did not belong to or support any political parties. We would still have a president as our head of government and executive, elected to four year terms. The monarch, serving for life, would have a purely ceremonial role identical to that of other constitutional monarchies in Europe. The only difference would be that once the reigning monarch died, instead of being replaced by an heir, Americans would elect another citizen to be their new monarch. This would be fair and equal, since all citizens could be chosen for the role, yet would still provide all of the benefits that come with a constitutional monarchy. Any thoughts?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-26-2007, 07:08 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of America View Post
Keep in mind that a monarchy does not always need to be hereditary. Perhaps the United States would be more keen to an elective monarchy. Americans would elect an impartial citizen to serve as their monarch and head of state for life. And to make sure that the throne stayed a neutral institution, it would be a requirement that candidates for the crown did not belong to or support any political parties. We would still have a president as our head of government and executive, elected to four year terms. The monarch, serving for life, would have a purely ceremonial role identical to that of other constitutional monarchies in Europe. The only difference would be that once the reigning monarch died, instead of being replaced by an heir, Americans would elect another citizen to be their new monarch. This would be fair and equal, since all citizens could be chosen for the role, yet would still provide all of the benefits that come with a constitutional monarchy. Any thoughts?
Well Emperor,I think that this arrangement resembles the Malaysian Monarchical Federation.It might work.But it will create several mini Royal Families.And what qualifications does the citizen have to have in order to be elected as the Monarch Sovereign?Patriotism? Wealth?Lineage?Good looks?Right education?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-26-2007, 09:29 PM
crisiñaki's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,800
I think there are very different types of monarchies even inside Europe, for example the UK and Denmark are two of the strongest models and are widely recognized as symbol of unity, it's hard to conceive those countries as republics, they have never been and who knows if they'll ever be

the Netherlands or Sweden are quite strong as well, but the institution isn't that important for people, right? that's the way I perceive it, is there but people isn't that much worried about if it is there or not as long as the system works and they are happy

another much different case is Belgium and Spain, where the country itself has a division of languages and lifestyles that probably don't get well with a centralist government system, a rising number of republicans and growing losing of respect for the RF; Spain has had 2 republics before and I believe that if it wasn't for Franco, Spain would still be a republic
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-14-2007, 01:31 PM
WordsUponTheWind's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ---, Austria
Posts: 84
Royals for Presentation

Royals for presenting their country, only minor political power for them.
Preserving style, glamour, modesty(?) etc. all that I miss looking at several politicans. Slogan like Queen and "Kaiser" for president (not US like, our president doenst have much political power, compared to the U.S. one)
This avoids political directions of social events like for the Noble Price, Red Cross, Fighting Aids, No Barrier or some local help. But I dont would give them full reign power. Democracy combined with Royality.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-14-2007, 02:43 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 874
There is an advantage and disadvanage to everyting in life. Here are my thoughts on republic vs.monarchy.First I will talk about the republic government. When your country is apart of a republic you have the right
to chose your own leader being you feel he or she is qualified enough to
handle the job as head of state.This makes you feel good that you have
the power to have your voice being heard. Now the monarchy when your
country has this type of government your leader is not chosen by the
people but is hereditardy and holds his or her postion for life.And he or
she has no power over government but he or she respects the country
with their duties and other members of the royal family are also represtatives.
I like the republic being I have the right to decide my leader might be but I wonder what if the republic was turned into a monachy but deep in my heart I do not see that happening any time soon now or later in the future.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:15 PM
Her_Majesty's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Norway & Spain
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 8,554
My personal opinion is... I love to be a Royal Watcher, but I am not a monarhist and rather glad to live in a Republic then in a monarchy.
Most of the monarchs are just an ornament with not a single piece of power (only representatives... and it is nice to see them representing their country). Sometimes it seems to me there is no space for a monarchy anymore in special countries); but on the other hand there are countries which I cannot imagine without a King or Queen leading it (like Britain).
But my point of View is clear.
__________________
Have a look at TRF Rules and FAQ



Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Potsdam, Germany
Posts: 199
I think speaking of the advantages of monarchy vs. republic depends on what kind of republic you have in mind. One with a political powerful president (like France or the US) or one with a representative president who only serves as a figurehead similar to a monarch (like in Germany, Italy or Austria).
In comparison to a representative president a monarchy is more advantageous, IMO. Simply because I think a monarchy is more glamourous and gets more attention and their members are better known because of their lifelong (or at least over decades) service, hence they are more suitable to represent their country both at home and abroad. And then a merely representative function doesn't need to be held by a professional politician who is elected either, because the person doesn't get to take any actual decision.
How many people who don't come from those countries I mentioned for example would know the name of their presidents? Not many I'm sure, but a lot of people know some members of Royal families and are interested in them, as this forum shows.
In comparison to a "political" president that is a whole different story of course, but to introduce such a presidency into a former monarchy would (usually) be a major change of the political system. Most representative monarchies have the monarch as head-of-state and a head of government as political leader, like in the UK for example. To introduce another powerful president alongside the head of government (like in France) would change the whole "workings" and division of powers in the country. And to turn the head of government into the head of state (like in the US) would bestow that person with much more political power than he/she originally had and therefore be a major shift in the balance of powers as well. That is of course not impossible to do but me a much bigger change in the constitution than just replacing the monarch with a president.
__________________

__________________
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 314 07-03-2014 10:55 AM
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 03:36 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 fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena 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 pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince frederik prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:08 AM.

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]