Are You A Royalist?

[Cory]

A Constitutional Monarch is not a leader and Greece would be different with Monarchy now ...not to speak about Iran.Constitutional monarchy...

 

[Renata4711]

Could you elaborate which are the advantages you have mentioned ?

 

[Cory]

Political stability,foreign credibility and another trust of people ...

 

[Iluvbertie]

I respect your position but view things differently. As non-Briton, I'd be glad to have some type of connection with the BRF- countries that have the Queen as head of state are part of something larger than each individual country, and the Queen is "[y]our own". She's just as much the Queen of Australia as she is the Queen of England.

First off she isn't the Queen of England. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and then Queen of countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc but no Queen of England.

She doesn't represent all the realms of which she is Queen equally as that would be impossible.

At the most recent campaign for the football World Cup William - the future King of Australia - actively campaigned against Australia's bid to host the 2018 (until we withdrew from that year and only went for 2022) - that is a problem for me.

That is symptomatic of the problem of having a foriegn personage as Head of State as that person can't properly represent all of the countries.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I can understand that view and I have friends who share it -- as well as being relatively new to Australia compared to you who was born here, and thus may be viewed as not having a right to speak on the question of Australia and monarchy -- but don't you think the Australian-born and Australian-educated Governor-General is your local head of state?

If the GG is Head of State then what is the position of the Queen?

You can't have two Heads of State.

The GG does the job and should have the entire position and remove the Queen from the equation as she simply has no connection here.

 

[Cory]

I suppose this discussion should be held at the forum dedicated to UK.

 

[American Dane]

If the GG is Head of State then what is the position of the Queen?

You can't have two Heads of State.

The GG does the job and should have the entire position and remove the Queen from the equation as she simply has no connection here.

The GG is the official Head of State sanctioned by the Government of the day. The Queen is the formal Head of State by law. They're two different things.
The Queen is a further check and balance in regards to the GG. Should the GG act not in the interest of the majority of Australians, and the PM for some reason doesn't have the power to stop that act, that is where the Queen could hypothetically come in.

 

[Cory]

This is a thread where we could say if we are monarchists or not.

 

[American Dane]

This is a thread where we could say if we are monarchists or not.

You're right Cory, this thread has gone a bit off topic -- partly by me -- by focusing on one monarchy specifically. Maybe the mods could move the discussion about the Queen to perhaps the "Queen and Australia..." thread instead.

 

[Cory]

Here we discuss if we are monarchists or not.

 

[CSENYC]

Could you elaborate which are the advantages you have mentioned ?

Having a non-partisan head of state, which can serve as a national symbol that can unite people.

I don't think that the job of head of state- the ceremonial position- needs to be a partisan, elected office, which can divide people. As an American, it's demoralizing and alienating to have a head of state who attacks groups that he doesn't like (e.g., Obama calling Republicans "enemies", among other things).

I'd also hope that a monarch would be another check and balance against tyranny. Unfortunately it hasn't always worked that way (see Italy in 1922), but sometimes it has (see Spain after Franco).

 

[ZaJa]

I live in America so I don't really have an opinion in it.I am just interested in royals.

same here

 

[Princess Jason]

I am a Monarchist-Royalist and I am an American.I think Monarchy is good for any country.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The situation's different here. The Queen is the Head of State but is represented in Canada by the Governor General.

The GG is the official Head of State sanctioned by the Government of the day. The Queen is the formal Head of State by law. They're two different things.

 

[Rhys82192]

I'm interested with Royals, but I'm not a Royalist. I'm just a fan.

 

[NotAPretender]

I would not label myself. I would not publicly label another.

 

[NotAPretender]

As someone who voted against Australia becoming a republic in 1999 I find that my attitude to Australia remaining a monarchy has changed and now firmly support the ending of the monarchy - particularly as it is a foreign monarch -here.

I am happy to follow the BRF - IN BRITAIN - but would like to see the links between the Queen and Australia end so we can be fully represented by one of our own.

If somewhere back in history the British monarch had been forward thinking and had put their younger children on the throne as King/Queen of Australia and we now had our own monarch instead of one we share and one whose first loyalty will always be to another country I would have remained a monarchist for Australia - and I suspect the entire republican debate would not have really arisen here.

Do I think that monarchies will/should be restored in Europe - no - they are an outdated institution, particularly in democracies. Where the democracy developed to include them - fine, but to impose them on a democracy isn't going to happen.

Bertie! Wow, I'm amazed to hear you say this (about Australia.)

Completely agree on restorations.

 

[NotAPretender]

I suppose this discussion should be held at the forum dedicated to UK.

That is not for you to decide. The topic is "are you a Royalist?" not "are you a Royalist for non-reigning monarchs in non-royal countries."

 

[Iluvbertie]

The GG is the official Head of State sanctioned by the Government of the day. The Queen is the formal Head of State by law. They're two different things.
The Queen is a further check and balance in regards to the GG. Should the GG act not in the interest of the majority of Australians, and the PM for some reason doesn't have the power to stop that act, that is where the Queen could hypothetically come in.

Actually the Queen can't do anything at all in Australia - by law - the Australia Act actually. She can't interfere in any way - not even to dismiss the GG - only the PM can do that.

She is nothing in Australia but a foreign interloper with the title Head of State.


As for whether I am a monarchist - for my own country most definitely not and this is the reason - she is meaningless to our system - has no role to play, rarely comes here and doesn't support our interests abroad - so why have her when we can stop with someone who can be totally ours.

As for Britain - fine - she belongs to them and they can keep her.

As for other monarchies - don't know much about them but they suit their countries and the ways of their countries -even the Middle East dictatorships suit the way the people in those countries operate. Would I wish to live under one - no way.

 

[NotAPretender]

Here we discuss if we are monarchists or not.

No, the thread topic says nothing of "monarchists," but instead "royalists." I'm surprised you don't know that, as you started the thread.

 

[Johann Salvator]

I believe that a constitutional monarchy (CM) is the best form of organization of the State. CM is similar to a republic, but because the head of the state is a monarch not an elective and temporary one, CM are more stable, represent their people a lot better (visibility) and it gives a sense of unity and history to the country.

In a CM the sovereign is the people represented through the parliament, and the monarch has nothing to do with the government.

We should not confuse our respect/admiration/fascination with a particular person or family with the support or not of a system. I personally support true CMs of today and the old ones that might come back, but always by the will of the people and within a democratic framework.

 

[Johann Salvator]

I forgot: in my case I am a royalist too! I 100% support our Elizabeth II and I want Canada to remain a monarchy with Charles, William and for many centuries

 

[Sit]

I am the rightful heir to the castle Carevec and I am a descendant of the first King. I live in a country of absurdities Bulgaria . Former communists are now present capitalists and is no longer publicly shot and added radioactive material in food and drink and many other experiments of the KGB .
Paradoxically my grandmother according to historical sources is the godfather of the continent .
Many thanks to subsidies and most stupid community in the human history.
Indeed, Europe is a whore Babylon as recorded Lord !
Complimenti !

 

[Cory]

It is interesting to see not everybody is royalist/monarchist on this Forum.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

I like to watch weddings and I´m interested in Royalty from the past. But I´m glad to live in a Republic and don´t have to support a Royal Family.
Plus the fact that "commoners" marry in make a Monarchy more average.

 

[Sancia]

France had 5 Republics,two Empires...but Constitutional Monarchy could always be back.A French interested in Royalty is not monarchist maybe because in France there is a division between "legitimistes" and "orleanistes".

Or maybe because he is a convinced republican but loves history I don't feel I could be monarchist in France but I am very interested about historical monarchies (the french one) and the current ones.

 

[Cory]

So even some republicans are fascinated by Monarchy.

 

[wyevale]

I am a royalist and love living in a kingdom.
The calendar is marked with all sorts of events at which my Queen represents the entirety of her people, regardless of their political opinion, she represents continuity, in a line stretching back over 1000 years.
Royal families echo our own family life, weddings, funerals, falls from grace, are all witnessed in a rolling panorama, and have been down the ages.
To me Britain would be imeasurably impoverished if it ever became a republic.

 

[Daria_S]

I am a royalist and love living in a kingdom.
The calendar is marked with all sorts of events at which my Queen represents the entirety of her people, regardless of their political opinion, she represents continuity, in a line stretching back over 1000 years.
Royal families echo our own family life, weddings, funerals, falls from grace, are all witnessed in a rolling panorama, and have been down the ages.
To me Britain would be imeasurably impoverished if it ever became a republic.

I would have to agree with you. The Royal Family is a big part of the British identity, and if it were to disappear, United Kingdom and the Commonwealth would not be the same. To me, a monarch provides a sense of unity, the kind I do not see here in the States. People may grumble about the high taxes, but when it's time for Trooping the Colour or a wedding, millions of people line the streets or sit in front of the television. I have yet to see this kind of respect for any president besides maybe John F. Kennedy.

My next-door neighbors are British, and even though they're not huge followers of all things royal, they cannot imagine their country without Her Majesty and House of Windsor. We've had some interesting discussion on this topic, and I love hearing what those who lived in the system have to share and offer.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is how I feel as well, although we don't have the Royal Family at events nearly as often as they attend them in the UK. I think that having a monarch is one thing that keeps us culturally independent from the United States. Not that I'm anti-American, but it's nice that we have things that are unique to our respective countries.

I am a royalist and love living in a kingdom.
The calendar is marked with all sorts of events at which my Queen represents the entirety of her people, regardless of their political opinion, she represents continuity, in a line stretching back over 1000 years.