The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 06-02-2008, 10:41 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Couple of reminders.

This thread is beginning to get off the topic of Monarchy vs Republic and going into unnecessary detail about US politics. Please remember that politics is off-limits on this forum unless directly related to royalty-related topics.

Also, there's no need to be trading personal insults. Any more of this sort of thing and the mods will start some heavy-duty deleting.

And finally, the opposite of "monarchy" is "republic," not "democracy." By the generally accepted definitions of a democracy, constitutional monarchies are included. Absolute monarchies are not, but that isn't what we're discussing.

Thank you.

Elspeth

Royal forums admin
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-12-2009, 06:52 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,731
I've only just found this brilliant thread so thought I would post my view on the subject. Although the last post was almost a year ago, I think the topic is a relevant one!

For me, abolishing the monarchy in Great Britain and becoming a replublic would be much the same as abolishing the US presidency and replacing it with a monarchy...why would anyone do it? The system of monarchy in Great Britain works just as well as the system of being a republic (if that is the right phrase!). Both systems are democratic, the people of such nation are free to vote and so what needs changing? However, I do think that the Head of State of any country needs to be a unifying entity and needs to be non-political (and therefore less controversial). In a republic, I prefer the systems adopted by countries such as Iceland, Ireland and indeed Latvia where the president is a figurehead and symbolic. That way, the Head of State represents the people of the nation rather than just a political party they represent. In general, I prefer the system of monarchy because the Head of State again is a unifying entity and a non-political symbol representing all the people, not just those who voted for them. When a political Head of State addresses the nation and tells the people which political party to vote for, it makes me feel really uncomfortable because where is the unifying, wholly representative element in that? Many republic supporters like the idea of being able to vote for their head of state. Yes, it would be very democratic to vote for a president rather than "make do" with whoever is on the throne. But what happens when the candidate you vote for doesn't get in?! Are you really comforted by the fact that at least you had the chance to vote and can do so again in 5/7 years time with the vain hope of eventually having the Head of State you want? The other questions to ask is who would want to become a Head of State and more importantly why? Would we be comfortable with an ambitious individual setting their sights on the top job by any means available to them?

By saying this, I do not mean to rubbish the institution of presidencies because they are mostly long established and work perfectly well. I mean it in the context of why in Great Britain would we need to change the present system (another view might be why would a republic want change back into a monarchy?

In a world where there are so many political changes, good and bad, I think some consistency and basic grounding to which society can relate to for familiarity and security is beneficial to society.

__________________

__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-12-2009, 01:56 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
...and wondered whether some countries are naturally suited to being a republic...
I'd say that some countries can be republics only - my country, for example. Bosnia and Herzegovina has three constitutive ethnic groups which, I believe you all know, have been in a silent war for centuries. That silent war finally evolved into a disastrous armed conflict which started in 1992 and ended in 1995. In order to maintain peace, our country has politicians from all three constitutive ethnic groups - we even have three presidents at the same time. This situation rules out any possibility for establishing a monarchy. Even though I am monarchist myself, I would strongly oppose establishing a monarchy in my country because it would eventually lead to another war
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-23-2009, 05:35 PM
yoyo1987's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 106
I'm italian in my country there is the republic but I love the monarchy i read many books on them. when there was the referendum i wasn't born .
__________________
HRH PRINCESS ELISABETH ANN
(It's a dream:) )
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-23-2009, 08:26 PM
royals-royce's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: -, United States
Posts: 124
Can anyone imagine the U.S. state of Hawaii contemplating to reestablish the Hawaiian throne? The last monarch Hawaii had was Queen Liliuokalani...

I think the majority of Americans will ask Hawaii to secede from the U.S. if that happened ...
__________________
"You have to realize that I am the son of the Queen of England." - HRH Crown Prince Frederik of DENMARK
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-23-2009, 08:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,436
It won't happen. Just colorful talk.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-23-2009, 09:37 PM
Sonjapearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In front of my Mac, United States
Posts: 607
There is a movement in Hawaii to secede from the states. But that movement is small.

It would take a massive event for Hawaii to become its own country again. Whether it reestablishes the monarchy is a different story.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-24-2009, 05:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 487
As I understand it there are just too many people living in hawaii without an indigineaous background. The native Hawaiians, who would be the ones most likely to want independence and a monarchy are very much in the minority.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-24-2009, 06:03 PM
Sonjapearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In front of my Mac, United States
Posts: 607
No, there are plenty of native Hawaiians. I believe they make up the majority there.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-24-2009, 08:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonjapearl View Post
No, there are plenty of native Hawaiians. I believe they make up the majority there.
Nice try, but they only make up 8.9% of the population. They don't mean people who happen to be born in Hawaii. But those of Hawaiian decent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-24-2009, 09:52 PM
Bones's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laredo, United States
Posts: 459
Even while Hawaii was independent the native population had been almost totally disenfranchised and was rapidly decreasing. The Queen's efforts to change this was a major motivation for the US interests on the islands launching the coup against her. During his administration President Bill Clinton issued an official apology to the Hawaiians on behalf of the USA for basically conquering their country -which didn't really satisfy those seeking the restoration of their rights but which was a rather unusual admission of guilt on the part of the government.

As much as it pains me I really don't see how Hawaii could ever possibly restore its monarchy no matter what the popular will on the islands is or will become. According to the US Constitution all states must have a republican form of government and titles of honor and hereditary titles are strictly forbidden. Likewise, the Supreme Court (in the aftermath of the Civil War) has ruled that no state can ever legally leave the Union regardless of the circumstances.

Oh, well
__________________
"Oh, God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams".
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-25-2009, 01:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
According to the US Constitution all states must have a republican form of government and titles of honor and hereditary titles are strictly forbidden. Likewise, the Supreme Court (in the aftermath of the Civil War) has ruled that no state can ever legally leave the Union regardless of the circumstances.

Oh, well
I find it interestin that in a country that prides itself on its democracy, and can probably call itself the oldest democracy still extant, that these two very important issues can not be changed, even by majority decision.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-25-2009, 02:40 AM
Bones's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laredo, United States
Posts: 459
It's not all that well known (rather taboo subject to dare suggest anyone would dream of leaving our utopia) and I didn't believe it myself until I was prompted to look it up. The Supreme Court case was Texas vs. White and the court ruled that the Union was perpetual and that any/all ordinances of secession passed by any state governments have no validity. The high court actually stated that the only way a state could leave the union would be through violent (and successful) revolution or if all the states and the federal government unanimously consented to expel a state. The republican stipulation has been in since the begining. So, we are a free, democratic republic in which the people can decide how they are governed -so long as it is a republic.

:americaneagle:
__________________
"Oh, God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams".
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-26-2009, 04:06 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 487
So that would be that if an independant country, such as canada, evr decided to join the Union, they could never change there mind. Interesting. Sorry this is getting off topic.

I don't think that Monarchy or Republic is more superior than the other. I prefer monarchy because it is based on family, as our society is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-26-2009, 01:29 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 80
Quote:
I don't think that Monarchy or Republic is more superior than the other. I prefer monarchy because it is based on family, as our society is.
That is exactly why I have to object to a monarchy, the fact that it is hereditary. Seems undemocratic. Why should someone be a monarch only because they are born in that family? Especially in situations when it seems obvious that there are much better qualified people for the job available?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-26-2009, 04:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 487
But our society is based on families, which re heridtary. Most monarchies today are based on glamour, a huge part of the President of the Us job is about glamour and family. Just look at all celebrations based around a new President. Part of the Obamas success is that they are very glamourous, and an ideal family.

I'm not overwhelmed by the idea of democracy, it's the best system there is but it is far from perfect. Just because the majority of people want something, doesn't make it right. And ordinary iundividuals have very little say in how a country is run. Ican vote for one party all I like but if about 30% (and that's all it takles in a preferential system) of the people in my electorate vote the other way my preffered candidate will never get in.

And while heriditary systems can certainly throw up bad eggs, and people better qualified miss out, however - ahem Bush II.

In the end it comes down to how the ordinary people are treated by the system. There is a reason why the people of Bhutan prefer their autocratic monarchy rather than democracy, they have been treated well by it.
As I said neither system is better than the other, I just prefer monarchy for its history, interest and that it is family based.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-26-2009, 06:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
I Am on the fence since I Live in a Republic suppose its fine but often wonder what wouldve happened if we had either lost or not fought the American Revoluntion
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-26-2009, 11:34 PM
Bones's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laredo, United States
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla View Post
That is exactly why I have to object to a monarchy, the fact that it is hereditary. Seems undemocratic. Why should someone be a monarch only because they are born in that family? Especially in situations when it seems obvious that there are much better qualified people for the job available?
That is unavoidable in any system I think. Would Al Gore's career have been the same if his father had not been a senator? Would George or Jeb Bush have gotten so far in politics if their Dad had not been president? What reason other than her last name did Caroline Kennedy have to be considered for New York's senator? There are also (non-democratic) republics wherein power stays with one family like Cuba, Haiti, Syria, North Korea etc. Even in democratic states being qualified doesn't seem to count for much. Obama was probably the least qualified candidate and yet everything seems to be working out for him. There's a big difference between democracy and meritocracy.

In most monarchies today it is not, I think, a matter of what powers the monarchs have (most have little to none) but what powers they keep out of the hands of politicians. I like the accountablity of republics (the democratic ones anyway) but I also like the way in monarchies that the head-of-state is not political and can be a source of unity for people on both ends of the left-right divide.

I've said before I don't think the US would be terrible if there had not been a violent revolution; we'd probably be like Canada or Australia -not that different in terms of rights or freedoms just with a Gov-Gen and a PM instead of a Pres and a VP. The US had the benefit of coming from what was probably the most limited and least autocratic monarchy in europe at the time.
__________________
"Oh, God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams".
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-27-2009, 01:58 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 80
Good points were made in the previous posts, but I have to stick to my opinion. It is true that in a democracy there are families resembling royalty-like structures (Bush, kennedy etc), however their sons and daughters will still have to go through the election processes for various political jobs. Just because Daddy is the president does not automatically mean junior will be president. And should the public have an unfortunate lapse in judgement, there is the consolation that the reign of the elected official will come to an end and a more qualified candidate will have a chance.

In contrast, children of monarchs are born to a job and have that job for life, no pesky election process, no fear of losing their place. I never know if I should feel sorry for them for their meaningless and largely entertainment-like existence or envious because they get paid so much for doing so little.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Turkish Delight's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 3,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Her_Majesty View Post
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.
I totally agree with you. I am glad to live in a Republic.
__________________

__________________
Everything we see in the world, is the creative work of woman.- Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe 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 hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess eleonore princess elisabeth princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias 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 05:28 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]