What Is the Point of Monarchy?

[Idriel]

Hello, I would like to hear your opinions about the sense and utility of a monarchy.
What do you think monarchs should do/be/represent: national symbols, moral models, activists for good causes, tourist attractions, political figures, sources of entertainment, etc...?
What monarch(s) in your opinion represent best the ideal of monarchy?
Are monarchies relevant to a modern world?

[Piewi]

Originally Posted by Idriel

Hello, I would like to hear your opinions about the sense and utility of a monarchy.
What do you think monarchs should do/be/represent: national symbols, moral models, activists for good causes, tourist attractions, political figures, sources of entertainment, etc...?
What monarch(s) in your opinion represent best the ideal of monarchy?
Are monarchies relevant to a modern world?

I´m against monachy, so for me they aren´t relevant, i mean they don´t lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).
They represent nacional symbols and their countries ( some of them, for example last year i discovered that monarchies exist, i only knew British royals-Diana- and Caroline of Monaco. And i was shocked to knew that Spain still have a monarchy! They were/are a famous country, how i didn´t know that they had royals? )
They also are huge sources of entertaiment.
For me royals have to help poor people on their countries(and others), do carithy, be in hospitals , create new schools...They have to use the love and money that they get in relevant things.

[grecka]

The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.

[EmpressRouge]

In times of crisis, the monarchy can be seen as a bonding national force that is above politics, example: King George VI and the British royals during WWII. But today, they are mostly for entertainment, tradition, and pomp. However there are those who argue that the money it costs a country to keep a monarchy is not as wasteful as it may seem. Countries w/o a royal family must still hold state galas, entertain politicians, and live and dress similarly to what royals do. The cost of doing this is about same, if not more, than what a royal family would cost. However, in these countries, the money spent is spread out throughout various gov't agencies so it doesn't LOOK like as much as what a monarchy would cost. Personally, I have not researched/kept track of spending, but this is another way of looking at things.

[Humera]

Im not a monarchist. But from the various opinions I've heard on this subject, monarchies today can also do a lot of good. Not having a King or Queen isnt reason enough to be proud. Im sure there are many people on this board who live in monarchies and are just as proud of their country and their monarch.

[Toledo]

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

In times of crisis, the monarchy can be seen as a bonding national force that is above politics, example: King George VI and the British royals during WWII. But today, they are mostly for entertainment, tradition, and pomp. However there are those who argue that the money it costs a country to keep a monarchy is not as wasteful as it may seem. Countries w/o a royal family must still hold state galas, entertain politicians, and live and dress similarly to what royals do. The cost of doing this is about same, if not more, than what a royal family would cost. However, in these countries, the money spent is spread out throughout various gov't agencies so it doesn't LOOK like as much as what a monarchy would cost. Personally, I have not researched/kept track of spending, but this is another way of looking at things.

Hi Empress,

I agree with what you have written, however, comparatively monarchies do tend to cost more than republics of similar size -- but not always. It depends on the type of republic, who's running it, etc. However, if the citizens feel that they are getting value for money,then that's all that matters.

Personally, I'm not always a monarchist. Like everything It depends on the situation. Every country is different, and has its own needs, etc. I'm totally against dictatorships posing as monarchies (Saudi, Jordan, etc.). That being said, a crown, can however, be a unifying force in divisive, multi-ethnic countries and confederate countries (e.g. Belgium, Malaysia, etc.). What's more, in my opinion, rather than becoming anachronisms in the European (and some non-European) countries in which they exist, in my opinion I think they will become even more important institutions. More specifically, with increased regional and international integration, the erosion of national borders, the spread of a global (ie American) consumer culture, and the compression of space and time, monarchies will provide their citizenry with a sense of national identity, continuity, and traditon -- a pillar of stability if you will, in a fast changing, hyper, and often politically and economically tumultuous world.

[Lena]

Originally Posted by Toledo

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?

I followed a bit the discussion on this other board...and I really hope, we can avoid such kind of discussion. We had a similar discussion before...and then people behaved. So I want to ask you in advance to do the same again. Please don´t get too much into politics, and please accept other opinions.

Lena, as moderator

[Iain]

Originally Posted by grecka

The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

[ElisaR]

Originally Posted by Iain

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I agree. :) And they are also a simbol of unity and continuity.

[Mascha]

Originally Posted by Iain

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?

[Idriel]

Thank you for your answers, great variety of ideas!

Toledo, I think you misinterpereted my thread. As you can see from the answers posted and from various practical examples, there are several way of beeing a monarch (Monaco's ruler has a completely different role than Spain's monarch for example). This thread is about how a monarchy should be ruled, and what monarch is the closest to a perfect ruler.
Of course, I opened the way to some discussions about the principle of monarchy itself as I thought it would enrich the conversation. I think I was right (see post #9).
If we are all adults, there is no reason for a war to begin :) .

Originally Posted by Toledo

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by Mascha

I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?

Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. :)) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Piewi

I´m against monachy, so for me they aren´t relevant, i mean they don´t lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).

That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by Iain

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Finally, the current occupant of the oval office is only one example. One can not judge all presidents of all countries by his record. There have been, and continue to be, numerous presidents and prime ministers who have united their countries, just as there have been (and continue to be) monarchs who bring havoc to their countries.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Sean.~

I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?

[Australian]

Originally Posted by Mascha

I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?

I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

[ElisaR]

Originally Posted by Idriel

That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.

And they also marry commoners. :)