Monarchy vs Republic

[BeatrixFan]

This has been touched on in other topics but as there isn't one set topic for a discussion I decided to start one and at this point I'll add a little request from Elspeth that there be no politics or swipes at foreign leaders!

I'm a monarchist. I like living under a monarchy and I have always been brought up to believe that the Queen is there because God put her there and you not only respect her and show due deference to her, you respect her family and the institution of monarchy. I've always thought the grand titles, medals and sashes, the idea of things belonging to the Queen and the whole Royal thing to be beneficial and I think it's an important part of the British character and heritage. But recently I read the biography of the President of Latvia and wondered whether some countries are naturally suited to being a republic and what would happen if the monarchies we talk about here were suddenly replaced and if they were, what with?

Personally I wouldn't like to see Britain become a republic but if it did, I always assumed it would become America Mark II. I assumed that the House of Commons would become the House of Representatives and the House of Lords would become a Senate. We'd have a President and a First Lady and everything would change. I actually don't think that's what we'd have were Britain to become a Republic. Being a firm pro-European, I think that if we did have to have a Republic, the best form would be a Latvian or French model. I'd be extremely sad to see the Queen and her family go but what do you think would stay or go? Would we keep the Order of the Garter or invent a new Order of the British Republic? Would we have an a-political President and a political Prime Minister?

And what about other countries? Do Monarchies work because some countries are simply suited to them and vice-versa where Republics are concerned? What would you rather live under - a monarchy or a republic and why?

[Elspeth]

Quick note about our rules

As BeatrixFan mentioned, this thread should stay on the general topic of monarchy and republicanism and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. We have a rule about discussion of politics and religion:

Discussion of politics and religion is permitted only in association with the royal-related topics of the threads.

and that rule should be followed in this thread. Any posts getting into the realms of "my religion is better than your religion," "my country is better than your country," or "even an insane monarch would be better than President Whosit" will be edited or deleted. The moderators will be following this thread carefully, so please think about what you want to say and be sensible and considerate about how you say it.

Thank you.

Elspeth

[kimebear]

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.

[Empress]

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.

And it would be great to have a specific person/family to rally around, that does not change so often.

[Lox]

I'm a republican. It's appalling that the position of head of state is still hereditary in some modern democracies.

What am I doing on this forum then? Well, royalty fascinates me. I like their connection with history, their bloodlines and relationships etc.

On this forum there's a lot of threads about non-reigning royal families. What's the difference between those threads and the threads about the reigning royal families? There is no difference. We still get to see pictures of the ex-royals in costumes and dresses, we can read about their pregnancies, etc.

My point is, it wouldn't be a big deal to abolish a monarchy. The royals will not cease to exist. They will continue to get married and have children. They will provide us with pictures and articles. They will continue to live in their respective countries (but not in castles anymore), and people can, if they want to, still treat them like kings and queens.

The only difference would be that all their involvment in state-business would end. We won't see their faces on coins anymore and we don't have to bow to them (if we don't want to).

[sirhon11234]

Well I respect a government that has a constitutional government but I'am quite content with our republic/democratic government here in the U.S. .
I've been raised to believe that we the people have the power to vote for the leader of our country and that gives me a great sense of pride.

[BeatrixFan]

Thanks all for your replies. I think the problem for me with a republic is the uncertainty and a lack of glamour and emotion. On the one hand we could have a system like Latvia where we end up with a wonderful President like Dr Vaira Vike-Freiberga. We could also end up with a terrible President. Now, you could say "Well if they turn out to be terrible, ditch 'em" - but where's the emotion? I can invest my emotions in our lovely Queen, I couldn't do that with Dr Vike-Freiberga as lovely as she is, because I would always know that she'd be dissapearing from the scene after her term was over. All the wonderful state banquets with tiaras and ballgowns and medals and ceremonial would all be gone and it just wouldn't be the same. To me, a Republic is a constant gamble but a Monarchy provides stability and certainty. And I like that.

[sirhon11234]

The U.S. had glamour once when the Kennedys were in office, Jackie O was our first glamours First Lady.

[yvr girl]

how much hatered was expressed for royalty when the Queen visited there. People were even upset that they were having a white tie formal dinner for her. (Even though she is a visiting Head of State of one of their best allies.) Americans are taught to believe that their system is best. And let's face it, they fought to dump the British.

But they do tend to treat their Presidential family like a royal family. The 'family' of a candidate gets a lot of play during an election. You also tend to know more about a President's children.

I'm Canadian. Political families don't play a prominant role here. I'm pretty sure out PM has two kids, but I have no idea what their names are. The only reason I even have a clue about his children, is because he took them to the Vimy Ridge Service in France, and his daughter gave flowers to the Queen.

I like that we have a Royal Family, and that they are apart from politics.

[BeatrixFan]

The U.S. had glamour once when the Kennedys were in office, Jackie O was our first glamours First Lady.

Well yes I agree and some of your First Ladies have had the elegance and glamour of Princesses - I include Laura Bush in that who I adore but you only have that glamour for a while. When Kennedy was shot and Jackie had to leave the White House, you lost that. (And that's no slight on Lady Bird Johnson who I thought was a darling).

[HRH Kimetha]

Since I'm American and do not have the opportunity to have a constitutional monarch to comment on, I have at times pondered who I would want to be that monarch. Suppose America wanted to emulate the UK and establish its first constitutional monarch, who would some of you want to be America's first King and Queen chosen from living Americans today? If it's an unmarried male, let's assume he'll eventually marry, and his new wife will be Queen. If an unmarried female that you'd rather choose first, her husband will be granted the title of Prince or Prince Consort.

Or, you can choose an existing married couple to be America's first King & Queen. For instance, you could crown Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Or maybe Al Gore and his wife Tipper. Or even your next door neighbor. Whatever the case, can you name any American single or couple whom you believe possess that certain royal panache to assume America's first royal throne?

My husband said he would chose Arnold Schwartzenegger & wife Maria Schriver (hey wasn't the Kennedy's considered America's Camelot Family) as King & Queen.

Think of that! An Austrian speaking German as America's first King!

[GlitteringTiaras]

Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha

My husband said he would chose Arnold Schwartzenegger & wife Maria Schriver (hey wasn't the Kennedy's considered America's Camelot Family) as King & Queen.

Hmm.

Moving on to BeatrixFan's question.

I believe this question is quite difficult to answer right away. Perhaps in a few days, after I really thought about it, I could give a solid answer.

Good topic nonetheless, BeatrixFan.

[acdc1]

I don't think most Americans would like having a monarchy. We're just so used to being like we are.

[LadyK]

I'm not sure about an American king, but for an American queen, I pick- me!

Tiaras and jewels and cute royal guys.....I could live with that

[HRH Kerry]

Originally Posted by acdc1

I don't think most Americans would like having a monarchy. We're just so used to being like we are.

True. But has anyone ever asked what would we loose if we did have a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom? Would we loose any rights? If we could adopt the system, who would we emulate?

The BRF have been born and bred to serve and represent their people; they've always known their civil duty. The closest we have ever had are the Kennedys but the Kennedys of a bygone era.

This is really hard by not comparing/calling out our past /present presidents and past/present politicians. I better stop while I can.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I've been raised to believe that we the people have the power to vote for the leader of our country and that gives me a great sense of pride.

I fully understand and respect that sentiment - but living in a constitutional monarchy (Denmark) I feel that we get that as well - our own elected leaders - and the tradition, the continued link to the past, in the shape of a royal family.
To me, a royal family in a country with democratically elected leaders make up a sort of rallying point or point of reference which I cannot imagine would be replaced in equal measure by a president.

[LadyK]

Originally Posted by kerry

True. But has anyone ever asked what would we loose if we did have a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom? Would we loose any rights? If we could adopt the system, who would we emulate?

The BRF have been born and bred to serve and represent their people; they've always known their civil duty. The closest we have ever had are the Kennedys but the Kennedys of a bygone era.

This is really hard by not comparing/calling out our past /present presidents and past/present politicians. I better stop while I can.

I think the problem would be justifying the tax increase, as monarchies generally have very high taxes, but provide its citizens more services, such as state healthcare. Denmark, for example, has almost a 50% income tax!

I would love a royal family, don't get me wrong- the glamour, all of that, but I'm just being painfully realistic.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by LadyK

Denmark, for example, has