Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Very well said Jack! I agree, I even read somewhere that the , money the British economy makes from tourism due to the monarchy is more than the cost of upkeeping it!
 
Perhaps you are right Jack and I don´t want anyone to make a mistake and think I am anti-monarchy, quite the opposite, at least while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, but I know that we are being told all the time how little the family costs each person each year and I feel that if you really think that is the correct amount well.......that is up to you, I don´t.
As to the point that the tourists only come to beautiful England because there is a Queen! I can´t agree with that argument, if it were true France would be empty in the tourist season......and many other countries as well.
 
Is the question about what would happen to a third world country if all monarchies are abolished? If so, I feel that nothing will be done. The lives of these people will
not improve one iota. There are glaring examples of corruption in countries where massive foreign aid is being received only to pad the pockets of the dictators and their cronies.
Help has to come from within each country to help it own, regardless of the form of
government that rules.
A lot of people leave their country go abroad, study, improve their lot but never
return to help their own people. Money is not always the only answer.
 
When I say tourism, I don't only mean coming to see changing of the gaurds at BPalace, also momentos and souveneirs, entrance fees to many places and so forth. The basic fact is that the 3rd world countries suffer has no connection to the amounts given to the royals all combined. It is many times due to politics and disfunctions in their own country by their corrupt government, how many times do we see upheavals and coups in those country with the deposed ruler in exile with a multi billion bank account in Switzerland? This money was aid money to feed hungry babies and vaccinate children. There are so many other causes, let our royals be!
 
I guess my question was mainly rhetorical. I know and agree with what you are all saying, its just that when you see the differences in class when its been smacked in your face for the first time, its just a big shock to the system. So I was just asking myself why there should be royalty when so many people are on the streets......it was just something i was thinking about while reflecting on my travels.
 
Perhaps you are right Jack and I don´t want anyone to make a mistake and think I am anti-monarchy, quite the opposite, at least while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, but I know that we are being told all the time how little the family costs each person each year and I feel that if you really think that is the correct amount well.......that is up to you, I don´t.
As to the point that the tourists only come to beautiful England because there is a Queen! I can´t agree with that argument, if it were true France would be empty in the tourist season......and many other countries as well.

When the royal family's accounts are published each year, a number of newpapers calculate roughly how much having a monarchy costs each man, woman and child in the UK and I am sure the figure came to about 61p but you are quite right Wisteria, the figure could be totally different and I don't think the calculation takes into account security which is astronomical! I think the question of whether being a constitutional monarchy adds much to the UK's tourist revenue is a totally different subject. We'd have to to do a poll of people living abroad who visit the UK and ask them why they come!
But the original question still has me thinking and there are so many things that come to mind about why should the taxpayer pay for the upkeep of the royal family when there are people living in poverty. It occured to me that if the taxpayer did not have to pay for a constitutional monarchy, would poverty cease to exist or the problem be lessened significantly enough to warrant the abolishion of the monarchy? Is it the royal family's obligation to live frugally in order to save other people from living in poverty? Should all heads of state live in small houses and eek out an existence on very little money? Does living in a palace constitute a crazy lavish lifestyle? The list is endless!
 
Well I just got back from visiting third world countries and I went on a missionary program. I don't want to talk myself up...but you asked. I am going away for 6 months next year to work in African countries too.
Thank you for telling us and I don't think it is talking yourself up at all. I admire and respect greatly people who try to do something to help the situation of those less fortunate than themselves. What I have no time for are the people who moralise about a problem but then sit back and say 'they should do something about it'.
 
Should all heads of state live in small houses and eek out an existence on very little money? Does living in a palace constitute a crazy lavish lifestyle? The list is endless!

I agree with all you have said but I wonder if it makes any difference to the tourists who stand outside Buckingham Palace peering through the gates whether the Queen is in residence or not....
I have never thought that a President or Monarch should travel on a shoestring and wear clothes from the local supermarket, they represent their country and should travel, dress and entertain accordingly.
My main problem is the money spent on the minor members of the royal family and I just don´t buy the excuse that most of the expense is from her
Majesty´s own pocket as if it had nothing to do with the British people.
I think it is admirable that Australian has found his social conscience and is doing his bit to help I only wish that all African leaders would follow his example.
 
Personally I do not see the connection between royalty and corruption in the developing world.

There are many countries that do not have a King or Queen which are just as corrupt. For example, many African nations are run by presidents who sihon of their country's welath for their own purposes, hence widespread poverty.
 
Sadly once again we have fallen into the partisan trap of this discussion; monarchy is just one form of government. Most monarchies like most republics are not role models for good governance, however there are degrees: constitutional monarchies work because the head of state has no power. This charity thing is a red herring. A good Christian, as does a good Islamicist makes acts of quiet charity; if you have to hob nob with royalty before you will part with your alms then pity you.

It is true royalty can give glamour and glitz to many people in countries where daily life is dull and drab. Most princely families put on a front, this solidarity is to be applauded, it is an example to us all. There is the historical dimension too. Royalty are human, they have failings. Many don't really live up to expectations. Simply royalty can be an extremely good thing, but it is only as good as the members within it.
 
While it is sad that there is such a wide gap between First and Third World nations, I don't see how it relates to monarchies. History has taken its course and we have places with monarchies and some with republics. Some places are industrialised and some are in poverty. Getting rid of the gliz and glamour would not achieve anything in improving living standards - it would just take away what makes monarchy special.
 
^^^ Well said... Monarchs are the face of their countries and as that face you are required to dress and behave a certain way otherwise the world might not think so highly of you. It's like a large business and they are @ top representing the company trying to convince why others should do business with them... If you don't advertise/market yourself properly you're not going to get anything. So no, I don't think the royals should give up their lifestyles.
 
Personally I do not see the connection between royalty and corruption in the developing world.

There are many countries that do not have a King or Queen which are just as corrupt. For example, many African nations are run by presidents who sihon of their country's welath for their own purposes, hence widespread poverty.
I afraid that's not entirely correct. Frankly, if we are talking about corruption and African nations taking advantage of their people, then let's not forgot that often times who puts the dictators in power, who supports them, who tolerates them. Furthermore, let's NOT forget the ROLE OF COLONIALISM which is DIRECTLY related to royalty and other forms of government.

Australian's question is coming from a very human place, and when people of good conscience (such as herself) see first hand the poverty that exist in the world, it makes them question things. I applaud your efforts and concerns! However, I agree with most of you that even if we no longer had the monarchy, the problem would still exist. It's very difficult to deal with distribution of wealth as greed (yes, CORRUPTION) almost always gets in the way.
 
I have to be honest. I don't see the relevency of this discussion. Some people feel the calling to go on a mission . . . . . . it's those that stay behind doing the daily grind to put their 10% in the plate to fund that mission.

Without a monarchy we still have politicians who, unfortunately keep getting caught with both their snouts and trotters in the trough. Both cost money but at least Royal Families practice faith of some sort or another, and devote both time and prayer to those less fortunate both at home and abroad.

So, without the glories of capitalism there is no 10% to enable those who can do the mission.

Therefore one can be a practicing person of faith as well as a supporter of the Monachies. They are not mutually exclusive ideals. Now to be a person of faith and go vote . . . . . . . well, that is in the hands of the gods.
 
I love this thread! It finally talks about something that I find interesting!

I myself, not a avid monarchist like some of you. Although I respect you all's views. You have the right to speak your thoughts, just the same as I. I for one believe that countries around the world should shift from Monarchies and President's like the United States towards more figurehead head's of state. Who do nothing. That way you don't have to worry about another George Bush or King Mswati III.

You can have a President with no power. And maybe a Parliament that makes all of the decisions. That way the President is elected by members of Parliament, who are themselves elected to act on behalf of the people. That way you don't have to worry about ONE person taking control over a country. Because there would be groups of people who decide everything. I think that country would be very good. I hate the way the U.S. government is formed. I am actually making plans to relocate to another country because of it.
 
I think it's swings and roundabouts.

You could have a monarch who might be totally unsuited to the job of representing his/her country.

Or you could have a non-executive Head of State who could make his/her country a global laughing stock.

The latter happened to the Federal Republic of Germany when, a few decades ago, they elected an unsuitable Federal President who became a joke.
 
You can have a President with no power. And maybe a Parliament that makes all of the decisions. That way the President is elected by members of Parliament, who are themselves elected to act on behalf of the people.

Most parliaments in monarchies do exercise all of the legislative and executive functions of government and often choose which Royal House is suitable to reign depending of the circumstances of the country (eg The UK Parliament declared that James II and VII has abdcated via his flight form the country and then passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 to ensure that a member of the majority Anglican religion took the throne on the death of Queen Anne; therefore a course of action approved by the people the MPs represented was taken).

Based on existing practises in monarchies what you are arguing for is a change in the name of the status quo - a move that would be unnecessary and not deliver real benefits to citizens.
 
I'm from the US, and everything here is so modern and we have no real tradition. I'm facinated by monarchies and how they've been around for centuries and like others have said, royals act as good ambassadors for their country. So I think that as long as the royals are people with class and conduct themselves in a proper manner, then the monarchy in that particular country should stay. However, if there were a certain royal family where there were several royals that were a public embarassment to the country, well then I would say get a republic.
 
Hi All

[FONT=&quot]I have just got back from visiting many third world countries and it really opened my eyes. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

"Mine" eyes would be the archaic form. I dislike how grammatical rules have changed.

Why should countries be funding royal families when there are people living in poverty? I have been an avid royal watcher for some time now and all of a sudden I have had an enlightenment. Why should there be such things as royal houses these days? {/QUOTE]

To annoy those on the top floor here in America (i.e.: people in the Social Register), to know that they cannot buy their way into the Peerage/Nobility, much less Royalty.


What makes royals better than commoners?
Nothing. Such artificially created divisions are meant to pass down social, cultural, and economic capital to their next of kin. These privileges give the illusion of "superiority". Here in America while titles of Nobility are forbidden, there are still nonetheless inherited social privileges. People send their children to Exeter, Andover, Farmington, Deerfield, Choate, Swiss boarding schools like Le Rosé in Gushtaad, which then feed into the Ivy League (or better, Oxford or Cambridge) and the social indoctrination and the acquired privileges and capital further cement one's place in the social system. It is simply outstanding the methods used to reinforce the social system. The government confiscated everyone's gold and reimbursed them with fiat money that isn't hedged against inflation.

Mine apologies for the digression, but when on the topic it's difficult to stop.

Why should people fund crazy royal lifestyles? I know this is the way of the world. There will always be rich and poor people.
I avoid the phrases "rich" and "poor" since they are far too simplistic and polarized, apart from a purely economic context (e.g.: "Only individuals who are very rich can purchase property on the upper east side"). There are many social classes, not even entirely dependent on wealth. Certain working-class blue collar families might have higher salaries than their middle-class neighbors, but the middle-class has more social and cultural capital than the working-class (the working-class still has a lower average salary than the middle-class, however. Although welfare recipients, the lower-working class, may considerably bring the working class average salary down. The working-class simply wants to eat dinner with their family, then watch football or car racing, have a beer, and be happy.

Above the Middle-class is the Upper-Middle class. One must never confuse the Upper-Middle class with nouveaux riches raised middle-class. The nouveaux riches are like an entirely different parallel society with those who follow a working-class culture such as "entertainers", mobsters, and the like, while Bill Gates would be an example of a culturally Middle-class noveau riche.)

I just am questioning my royal interest now.
It makes for a good sociological study. It isn't just the Royal and Peerage systems that are elitist, however. Here in America we have an affectation of Republicanism. One only needs study our history, you will find those who fought for the equal treatment promised by the constitution* met with a lot of resistance. There is a piece of folk wisdom: "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" yet, when the Irish and Italian immigrants did just that they passed prohibition laws. The American dream isn't something you earn; it's something you inherit. However, in the rare case you do "earn" it, you usually obtain it through an outside-the-box solution. Saving to do better for the next generation simply will not work.

*The Founders were also elitist; look up the whiskey rebellion and how the government acted as a buffer between the hoi polloi and the owners of the means of production. And how you needed to be White, male, and a property owner to vote[/FONT]
 
I have to be honest. I don't see the relevency of this discussion. Some people feel the calling to go on a mission . . . . . . it's those that stay behind doing the daily grind to put their 10% in the plate to fund that mission.

Without a monarchy we still have politicians who, unfortunately keep getting caught with both their snouts and trotters in the trough. Both cost money but at least Royal Families practice faith of some sort or another.

Here in America we have tres declasse politicians who want to teach the outre notion of creationism as if it were a fact. We have very religious politicians here, especially nasty are those from flyover country who are in churches that lack any legitimate pedigree. At least the Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic Churches are grounded in centuries of tradition, and are good places to network. Although homophobia, bigotry, and sexism are common, disgusting traits, the bible itself unfortunately supports them. Philosophy, science, and knowledge have advanced so far since those times, and even for those times Palestine was relatively primitive compared to China, India, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Thus, giving those regions more credibility regarding philosophy. Although those ancient civilizations philosophical concepts are still primitive compared to Montesquieu, Kant, Adam Smith, etc. Although Eratosthenes accurately measuring the Earth's circumference was very amazing indeed, considering that before the common era Greeks were oblivious to the fact the western hemisphere and Pacific Ocean exists.
 
This is a topic dear to my heart. I think the above Boston Globe article says much that needs to be said- that the monarchy, above party politics, can serve as a unifying symbol and representative of a nation's heritage, as well as a guarantor of stability. Add to that, constitutional monarchy in various forms- like other government systems- in fact go back into antiquity, if you could consider states like Sparta to be such.

People's criticisms of monarchy such as costs and lifestyle... for one, why not ask about the costs of politicians, including retired politicians (especially in the USA, Mexico, et al)? Or the fact that many of those rulers who lived the most outlandish lifestyles weren't even royals- like Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. And many people who aren't even royals, aristocrats or politicians, can be accused of living more outrageous lifestyles- sometimes even beyond their own means.

No one system can solve all the world's problems, but neither are they the cause of the world's problems. Interesting to see Africa being brought up- in Africa (and maybe parts of Asia too), you find traditional sub-national monarchies still existing, coexisting with modern republican nation-states which have been superimposed on them. The fact is that the traditional kingships of Africa have endured both through colonial rule and post-colonial statehood, and have been an institution of continuity when nation-states above them fail. They serve important historical, cultural and community roles, and in some cases also a spiritual role (especially among Muslims of West Africa). In a country like Botswana or Samoa, the traditional monarchical (or chiefly) power structure works in tandem with the national government and are intertwined in those particular examples.

Why not point out the historical irony of Latin American countries? The countries of Hispanoamerica, emulating the United States, prided themselves on being republics and on their rejection of monarchy and titled nobility, yet most of these countries proved to be anything but shining beacons of democracy, liberty, equality or stability- something that has only began to change, really, in the last generation. The term "aristocratic republic" can apply here, as it did to those pre-1789 republics in Europe (like Venice or those of Ancient Greece). A republic does not always represent a step forward- Brazilian historians even argue, with validity, that the First Republic in Brazil was in many ways a backward step both socially and politically from the Empire it had replaced.

At the same time, one has to be able to distinguish between the good and bad and we can see examples close together- Lesotho is a constitutional monarchy which is non-political, whereas in Swaziland, Mswati III rules the country as a personal fiefdom. In Tonga, likewise, the Palace has had to cave into pressures for reform and democratisation. In Nepal, Gyanendra's direct intervention and assumption of power cost him the throne, whereas in Bhutan the monarchy has been protective of the country's culture and traditions while also introducing democracy. While in Morocco the monarchy actively wields political power, it has also overseen a process of political liberalisation (relative to the much of the Arab world).

Then the calls for deposed monarchies to be restored, particularly in the Balkans and Georgia. In Serbia and Georgia, monarchist sentiments are not difficult to understand from a more recent historical context. Firstly, the monarchies of Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia were deposed in a dubious manner, and these countries then endured four decades of Communist rule. More recently, these countries as well as Georgia have endured many problems, and to a degree demoralisation stemming from conflict. This explains why support for a monarchist restoration exists among not insignificant segments of the population and even among the political class.

I've tried to cover everything as best as I can here. Or at least I hope so!
 
So, I finally found a forum where I can present my thoughts to those who advocate a monarchy.
First of all it makes me kinda sad when I read posts about, how people would love to live under a monarchy. I mean you embrace it, that someone calls you a "subject" which graduates you to be an inferior person. You see those people to be chosen by god. I ask you, would Jesus have wanted someone to appoint himself to be chosen by god, just because he conquered some land? I guess not. Was it not Moses who released a nation from his pharao, who is equatable with a king?
What I want to say with it is I cannot agree with those people who embrace their kings to be chosen by god, nor can I agree with people who say the pope is chosen by god. To be honest, I see myself as an agnostic. So don't think I am some religious fanatic.
Back to the topic. Having a monarchy is like living in the past. Personally, I would not want to be represented by someone who was just born to be a representative. I want to vote my representative. Furthermore I cannot understand why, obviously, people come to terms with paying taxes which enrich the monarch. Do you never heard of Robin Hood? :D
Wouldn't you people want to be part of a republic, where every individual is on a par with everybody else (I know there are social disparities all over the world but I mean on an ethnical level), so nobody can claim he is chosen by god and by that automatically outranks everybody else?
Besides that all, how come you back such a big event as the recent wedding in sweden? It only costs the population money.
I am enraged about having to pay a broadcasting fee because it is regulated by public law. How can you people live with the fact, you are forced to pay something you maybe even decline?
For example, look at this: http://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/Royal finances/index.php Doesn't that ring a bell?
Please do not see my post as an insult. Furthermore, forgive me my bad english. :p
Greetings, juanson
 
This is a piece I wrote in my own time on the matter

Why Monarchy Still Rules
As I watched the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and Daniel Westling, I reflected on a topic dear to my heart, and no doubt that of many more, be they historians, political scientists, or royal watchers: the value of constitutional monarchy in modern society. In this day and age, there are people who question the value and relevance of constitutional monarchy in today’s democracies and our ever more complicated (and troubled) world. Why should constitutional monarchies continue to exist in this day and age and what benefit to they bring to their countries? More importantly, why the alternatives are not always better. I’m used to it by now, I live in Australia, where this (monarchy v republic) is always a hotly debated issue. However, I believe the informed voter needs to weigh up both sides of the argument. I am also passionate about history, always keen to highlight ironies of historical and current facts. And in the age old debate of “monarchy or republic”, irony never rings truer- irony too often lost on critics of existing monarchies. More specifically, the constitutional monarchies of Europe, of which there are currently 10 reigning royal houses- 7 Kings, a Grand Duke and 2 Princes. This does not mean we should overlook the world’s other monarchies, those of the Middle East, Asia and Africa, including existing monarchies within modern-day nation-states (particularly in Africa).

The usual arguments in favour of monarchy are about the “romance of monarchy”, or the benefits it brings to tourism among other things, and while they may carry weight, they by no means make a case themselves for constitutional monarchy. But more powerful social and political arguments do: that the monarchies of Europe symbolise a nation’s heritage, continuity and unity. That monarchy is an institution above politics and politicised institutions. And in many ways, that the monarchy is very much tied to the very identity, the heart and soul of the nation, and that kind of emotional connection cannot be easily replaced. As we live in times of great uncertainty, a situation easily exploitable by those who may not always have the people’s best interests at heart, the need for an institution that provides unity, continuity and impartiality, a rallying point for a nation when the need arises, has never been greater. The most important role a constitutional monarch plays, above all else, is to be the impartial arbitrator and custodian of the nation’s political system.
One finds it hard to imagine many of these countries without their monarchies- whether it’s in Denmark, where the monarchy represents over a millennium of the nation’s history, or Luxembourg, the world’s only Grand Duchy, or the little principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein. And how can one not have admiration for a royal family as warm, discreet and down-to-earth as that of Luxembourg?
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Progress?
Maybe something to ask yourselves is this: is a republic necessarily a forward step from a monarchy, in terms of equality and democracy? Does it always represent “progress”? Not always, or in many cases not at all. It’s something to be reflected on in this bicentenary year for Latin America. This year, the countries of who had been part of Spanish America, are celebrating 200 years since their independence struggle began. Out of this struggle was born the present-day republics of Latin America, who like the United States and unlike Brazil, Canada, or the former British colonies of the Caribbean, gained their independence through revolutionary struggle. They looked to the French and American revolutions for inspiration. And it’s in this that we find an irony that is all too often lost on critics of monarchy.
In a 19th century world where monarchies still ruled the roost (and increasingly constitutional ones at that), the newly independent nation-states of Latin America (except Brazil and, for two brief periods, Mexico) were republics, like the United States they took after. They prided themselves on their rejection of monarchy, titled nobility, and privilege. They took great pride in republicanism. Yet these countries were to be anything but models of democracy, freedom, equality or, quite often, stability. The socioeconomic and political structures of most Latin American republics came to be highly undemocratic and inegalitarian. As the 20th century dawned, few could claim to have stable, let alone democratic, government. Indeed, democracy, free elections, let alone a move towards greater social justice and human rights, only became the rule rather than the exception in the Americas within our lifetime. There was a time when the number of actual democracies in Latin America could be counted on one hand. The term “aristocratic republic” applied, but this evolved into more despotic and often military-dominated power structures.

By contrast, all of Britain’s former Caribbean colonies as well as Belize (its last mainland colony) attained independence peacefully and remained stable democracies ever since.

Many countries at the time, whether monarchies or republics, took pride in written constitutions and the liberal democratic principles they enshrined, but veneration of constitutions did not necessarily translate to actual adherence of its principles. Mexico is a particularly salient example of this. And while republics existed in pre-1789 Europe- those of Venice, Genoa and San Marino being examples- they did not at the time offer any pretension of offering greater liberty or equality than monarchies, for they were in effect aristocratic republics (San Marino remained so until 1906).
 
Brazil presents an interesting case for political scientists. It inherited the traditions and institutions of Portugal, and became an independent Empire in its own right. Brazil maintained constitutional government continuously until the overthrow of the monarchy in 1889, at that time a record unequalled in Latin America. Dom Pedro II was seen as a reformist who strongly opposed slavery (abolished late in his reign), and believed that improving education and literacy would strengthen democracy. He was seen as too radical by many of the country’s elites of the time, and this contributed to the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy. Brazilian historians have come to believe that the First Republic that replaced the Empire was not a forward step, and in many ways it was even a backward step that entrenched its elites. Indeed, the sort of progress desired by the Emperor is really only now being realised in Brazil.

Similarly, nobody can reasonably believe that the Weimar Republic was any improvement on the German Empire it replaced, and its dismal failure politically and otherwise, paved the way for totalitarianism and war. Ditto Portugal. In Afghanistan, the 40-year reign of Zahir Shah is now seen as a Golden Age by many Afghans, of peace, stability and progress the country has not had before or since. Similarly in Ethiopia, Haile Selassie’s reign compares favourably to the Derg regime that followed.

It may be in this context that talk of restoration of the monarchy enters the political debate in countries like Serbia and Georgia, where it figures in mainstream political discourse. The Karadjordjevic and Bagrationi dynasties are both home-grown dynasties- the former originating in Serbia’s early 19th century independence struggle, the latter dating back to antiquity. Why monarchist sentiment runs strong among the populace and political class in those countries are easy to understand- these are countries that have been looking for a rallying point above politics, in a time when both countries have been embroiled in demoralising regional conflicts. The royal houses of Montenegro (Petrovic-Njegos) and Albania (Zogu) are similarly indigenous to those countries. In Romania and Bulgaria, likewise, a degree of sentiment exists in favour of restoration- although not as strong as in Serbia or Georgia. But all of these countries endured decades of oppression from which they only emerged in recent times, and in all of these cases the deposition of the monarchy was dubious in both legality and legitimacy.

Indeed, successful restorations have taken place in both Spain and Cambodia. In Spain, Juan Carlos oversaw a transition to democracy and indeed intervened to preserve democracy, serving as a figurehead of national reconciliation. In Cambodia, the restoration of Norodom Sihanouk as King enabled him to fulfil a similar role in a much traumatised country.

Critics of monarchy frequently cite the costs involved of maintaining the monarchy. Yet, the numbers out there tell the story- a monarchy should not cost a great deal to maintain (albeit varying considerably), when compared to the price paid in countries for elected leaders (and retired ones, for that matter), not least in countries like the United States or similar presidential systems. Elections are not exactly cheap to run- and the cost per head of an election is likely to be higher in the US than in Western Europe, and higher still in more recently established democracies, like those of Latin America and Eastern Europe- and these are countries where people are most grateful for being able to exercise their democratic rights.

Also noteworthy is the symbolic historical and cultural, and in some cases religious, functions served by traditional monarchies in post-colonial nation-states of Africa. Here again, we see the merits of an institution which has endured colonialism and post-colonial states, which Africa’s traditional monarchies have. In Uganda, the abolition of traditional kingdoms by Milton Obote in 1967 was a power grab that ushered in a dark period for the country, only ended by Yoweri Musevini’s coup of 1986 (Musevini himself is a native of Ankole), with monarchies being restored in 1993. Elsewhere, the institution of traditional monarchy has perhaps been the most stable institution of post-colonial states, whereas in Botswana the institution is closely tied to the national power structure- although this convergence of traditional and modern institutions is by no means unique.

Outside of Europe, sovereign monarchies vary from absolutist to constitutional, to somewhere in between. We have seen examples of where they need to be acutely aware that their use or misuse of powers can damage the credibility of the institution, like Nepal- even though the failure of the present government since the abolition of the monarchy has led some to question the wisdom of abolition. Some have been criticised both for their lifestyles and autocratic way of ruling (Swaziland), while others (Bhutan) have overseen their country’s transition to democracy while maintaining tradition. But non-European monarchies operate, generally, in a different social, cultural and historical context that has to be taken into account.

You don’t know how good you’ve got it!

And the lessons to be learned? Those who live in constitutional monarchies of today, particularly in Europe, don’t know how good they have it. They have an institution that can stand above party politics and politicised institutions, a guarantor of unity, stability and continuity. History has shown that you don’t appreciate what you have, until it’s gone. And constitutional monarchy has not only proven a workable and venerable model, it’s also here to stay. History has proven that republics do not always represent a forward step or a better way of governing than monarchy, and the majority of us are loathe to make any radical change, out of having learned the lessons of modern history. And some countries just wouldn’t be the same! This is not to say that one system is inherently more failure prone than others, because in today’s Europe you find both monarchies and republics that work well, but the fact that republics prove no better in their real world functioning coupled with the above historical examples is often lost on critics of monarchy.
 
Nothing in Latin America took after the United States, whose traditions were English and stable. Unfortunately, many Latin American nations never invested in education and kept their populations as an underclass. The United States who put vast resources into education, so its populations were not unable to shift to the rising demands of new opportunites and lifestyles. Not that other countries did not posess the ability to raise a great middle class, with vast horizons. Weimar came at the wrong time, led by the wrong people after a terrible war and unequitable sanctions against them. Do you think Wilhelm II was a good leader, although he had basically unlimited power. Nicholas II was an ineffectual and weak leader, who held autocratic power. Hitler was not an abberation, he was a direct extention to autocracy and distrust of "outsiders", thus the Jews. Germany was educated, yet had no real concept of a "Republic". It was an outside invention, so to speak.

An educated and mutinational melting pot made the United States what it is today. We have been able to benefit from so many different people and ideas melding together. The others were mononational, unable to grow from outside ideas.

American elections are costly and elections are not cheap to run, but moinachies are far more expensive than they allow on the surface. Yes, we pay for past president's, but we don't "supply endless support" for their familes, who cut ribbons at functions and doi little else. Yet monarchies, such as England have benefitted the most, having been able to keep monies and property not allowed to the average citizen. Not until recent times have the Windsors paid income tax. And still they have loopholes that other do not get to take vast posessions without tax. Monarch to monarch, a big tax loophole. Others do not get that. Their PR always makes it seem like they are a bargain, pennies, but ask youself how they live the lifestyles they do, with so little from the outside. Constitutional monarchies still have elections, which cost money, too.

I, believe, that all have a right to live as they please, but I thank my lucky stars that my ancestors left Russia and Austria for "a better life". Actually, I probably would not be here if they stayed there.
 
The founding fathers of independent Latin American countries did look to the US, and more specifically the US constitution, for inspiration (especially Argentina, whose 1853 constitution is still in force today, albeit heavily amended)- but this failed to take into account things like land title systems, legal traditions, or the fueros of the military- hence the military came to see itself as a privileged elite.

Yes elections everywhere cost, that's the point.
 
That's just it. The military was far too powerful in those nations, military juntas running countries. They didn't have the tradition of English Common Law, which was predicated on good sense and titles were immediately discarded. Argentina has amended its constitution beyond recognition to ours.
 
Also i think if the Monarchy vill survive it is important that they do a good job...
In my country of Sweden the head of state The King hasn't got any power on paper, but he has some very good connections when he travels around the would and doing promotion for the country of Sweden.
Due to his very good connections with head of state in many countries he helps for instance Swedish companies to establish in new countries.

He also helps our Minister for foreign affairs with the country's politic issues -and has also helped to negotiating peace.

The King and also the queen of Sweden helps a lot to promote for humanity organisations ,collecting funds and divide them to help organisations like World Childhood Foundation
Welcome to Childhood

I think the Royal house of Sweden is doing a very great work for Sweden and they are doing themselves use full and serves Sweden and humanity in the very best way possible

If the Monarchy and nobility want to survive in a modern world we must make ourselves use full.... and earn respect from society by doing important work by doing good deeds !!

Also we need organisations like this maybe.. to work together ...
 
Critics of monarchy frequently cite the costs involved of maintaining the monarchy. Yet, the numbers out there tell the story- a monarchy should not cost a great deal to maintain (albeit varying considerably), when compared to the price paid in countries for elected leaders (and retired ones, for that matter), not least in countries like the United States or similar presidential systems. Elections are not exactly cheap to run- and the cost per head of an election is likely to be higher in the US than in Western Europe, and higher still in more recently established democracies, like those of Latin America and Eastern Europe- and these are countries where people are most grateful for being able to exercise their democratic rights.

Heard a program on radio a few weeks ago about the financial situation in France. The reporter made a comment something along these lines: "And as a note to republicans in Denmark, that the monarchy is expensive* I might add, that the French presidency costs 7 billion kroner (1 billion euros) annually." (He was commenting on the newly passed french finance.)

*the complete, aggregated cost of the Danish monarchy, a Danish republican newspaper claimed, was around 400 mio dkk (55 mio. Euro). This included maintenance of the castles, several large military investments etc. - costs that would have to be maintained anyway. On the Danish finance, the monarchy gets around 140M dkk (20M euro) IIRC, making the french republican system 50 times as expensive.
 
Back
Top Bottom