Are You A Royalist?

[Missy-]

We are getting off-topic here, but, when it comes to the American Revolution specifically, King George IMHO was often misrepresented in revolutionary literature (including the Declaration of Independence), not only because many of the colonial grievances should have been more properly directed at Parliament and the British ministers rather than the King, but also because the revolutionaries were often acting in the own self-interest of a section of the colonial elite, which was not that noble BTW, rather than in the cause of freedom against tyranny. The war should also be understood in the broader context of European (and world) politics at the time, with the French, Spanish and Dutch intervention in favor of the rebels playing a decisive role in its final outcome.

Last but not least, let us not forget that a large section of the colonial population was initially at best indifferent to the rebellion and another smaller section actually consisted of loyalists, some of whom even took arms in defense of the Crown. Probably, a Canadian who is a descendant of loyalists who fought on the other side in the war and had to flee the United States in its aftermath would have a very different point of view than your family.

A sincere thank you for your thoughtful post MBruno!!

We actually have a colonial French Canadian branch from St Cloud, Ontario, I'm sure they felt very differently than the patriot side. Sorry for the OT, will move to another thread next time.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Despite the monstrosity that the USA is in right now regarding politics, I still must say I would choose this form of government over one that places people at the top of society simply for being born. Not to say we don't have a class system in this country but at least there are a lot of people who are able to break into it through their own hard work and expertise. Granted when you give people a choice they sometimes make a bad one as is evident by what happened in 2016. Personally if I need symbolism I will buy a flag or build a statue.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Yes, I like the Monarchy system.
The royal family can afford to concentrate on kindness, unpopular but valuable causes, charities, the environment, all social groups etc. instead of politics and getting themselves elected.
They also, over the generations, make strong connections with other countries in a diplomatic sense.
The royal family has more than one useful working person. A multitude of personalities to follow, to participate in various issues and hobbies.
The royal family is trained from birth and we know them from birth. There is a certain trust in familiarity.
The BRF practises Christianity, the basis of our laws, and it encourages respect in other religions and cultures.
The system of Duchies, having been set up centuries ago, is a great way for the income of the BRF to be separate from poitics.
I like the palaces and royal estates to have breathing people living and working there.
The BRF - now and throughout history is entertaining and fascinating.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The reason [above ALL others] that I believe Monarchy is the best system is precisely the issue you raise Mbruno..

The 'Top job' is removed from the 'scope of ambition' - NO amount of politiking, bribery, lobbying or ANY sort of political or military skulduggery can 'get you there'...

What about the palace coup in Saudi Arabia?

 

[Osipi]

The difference in Saudi Arabia is that it is an absolute monarchy as opposed to being a constitutional monarchy. ?

 

[Sam Flin]

Am I a royalist? That is an interesting question. I guess, based on the definition given I would have to say I am probably not.


I live in New Zealand, where QEII is technically our monarch. But in a very real way she plays no part in our lives, our parliment or our country. If there was a referendum about become a republic I would probably vote no. I kinda like having the queen as our monarch, even though it doesn't mean anything. However, if most people voted yes to the question and NZ become a republic, it wouldn't bother me at all as it would make more sense than to keep the monarchy.


As a way of government, I believe we have outgrown it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The difference in Saudi Arabia is that it is an absolute monarchy as opposed to being a constitutional monarchy. ?

That's true, but absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy both fall under monarchical systems.
There's a relevant question: Does the definition of "royalist" connote endorsement of all monarchies? For example, do most royalists support the Saudi monarchy and the other absolute monarchies?

 

[King of the Jungle]

I can only speak for the Consitutional Monarchy System. That is all I know and like.

 

[Somebody]

Am I a royalist? That is an interesting question. I guess, based on the definition given I would have to say I am probably not.


I live in New Zealand, where QEII is technically our monarch. But in a very real way she plays no part in our lives, our parliment or our country. If there was a referendum about become a republic I would probably vote no. I kinda like having the queen as our monarch, even though it doesn't mean anything. However, if most people voted yes to the question and NZ become a republic, it wouldn't bother me at all as it would make more sense than to keep the monarchy.


As a way of government, I believe we have outgrown it.

In my eyes there is a huge difference between having a monarch who is the resident of a completely different country and hardly visits the country he/she is also a monarch of, versus one that lives in the same country and spends most of his/her time towards that country. So yes, fully understand that from a New Zealand perspective the difference would be minimal. I still like the idea that the Windsor family members are assigned to different countries, so they will finally have a monarch who lives 'in-country' (yes, I know it is a fantasy but I still like the idea ).

 

[Somebody]

What about the palace coup in Saudi Arabia?

Part of the problem is that there is no clear line of succession. In that case, in combination with many princes by many different wives, the problem of 'personal gain' is immediately introduced.

It seems wise that Abdullah changed that in Jordan (following his father's rather late example in making his son the future king instead of his brother).

 

[Purrs]

I live in New Zealand, where QEII is technically our monarch. But in a very real way she plays no part in our lives, our parliment or our country. If there was a referendum about become a republic I would probably vote no. I kinda like having the queen as our monarch, even though it doesn't mean anything. However, if most people voted yes to the question and NZ become a republic, it wouldn't bother me at all as it would make more sense than to keep the monarchy.

As a way of government, I believe we have outgrown it.

As a Canadian, I feel we have long outgrown the monarchy and it's an anachronism in almost all commonwealth countries outside of Great Britain. I know our new citizens are often perplexed as to why the oath of allegiance is to the Queen, instead of the country of Canada. (The majority of Canadians are no longer of British descent.) At least our constitution was finally repatriated back to Canada by Pierre Trudeau in 1982. The commonwealth was constituted in the dying days of the British empire. We are all our own countries now and Canada could manage just as well without the monarchy.

(I would vote "yes" BTW. Not because I don't like QEII (I do) but I love my own country more.)

 

[Countessmeout]

As a Canadian, I feel we have long outgrown the monarchy and it's an anachronism in almost all commonwealth countries outside of Great Britain. I know our new citizens are often perplexed as to why the oath of allegiance is to the Queen, instead of the country of Canada. (The majority of Canadians are no longer of British descent.) At least our constitution was finally repatriated back to Canada by Pierre Trudeau in 1982. The commonwealth was constituted in the dying days of the British empire. We are all our countries now and Canada could manage just as well without the monarchy.

(I would vote "yes" BTW. Not because I don't like the QEII (I do) but I love my own country more.)

Yet you don't want a republic???? You want one archaic government form over another. You don't advocate for a president, you advocate for another figure head who has never been elected.

If the queen wasn't our monarch, who do you propose would nominate the Govenor general? They are not a figure head. They represent the queen. They are named by the queen and they serve for her.

If you love your country more, why do you want the queen's figure head in power???

I get people advocating for a president, I don't agree, but I get it. That would mean that we actually elect our own leader, and not have someone given to us. But I fail to see how one ceremonial head is any different then another ceremonial head is.

English descent still makes up the highest population of background in Canada (the top three being English/Irish/French). That hasn't changed. The commonwealth is not about our ancestors, but about the relationship (economically/socially/culturally) among those countries.

 

[Sam Flin]

As a Canadian, I feel we have long outgrown the monarchy and it's an anachronism in almost all commonwealth countries outside of Great Britain. I know our new citizens are often perplexed as to why the oath of allegiance is to the Queen, instead of the country of Canada. (The majority of Canadians are no longer of British descent.) At least our constitution was finally repatriated back to Canada by Pierre Trudeau in 1982. The commonwealth was constituted in the dying days of the British empire. We are all our own countries now and Canada could manage just as well without the monarchy.

(I would vote "yes" BTW. Not because I don't like QEII (I do) but I love my own country more.)

I totally understand that. I guess I don't really know what I would vote. I do find it quite ridiculous that we still recognise the British monarch as our head of state. It has become totally meaningless and unnecessary. If it came to a vote, my heart would probably say no to a republic, but my head would say yes.

 

[episcogal]

I think a constitutional monarchy is an effective form of government. As a citizen of the USA, I am definitely a republican.

 

[Sam Flin]

In my eyes there is a huge difference between having a monarch who is the resident of a completely different country and hardly visits the country he/she is also a monarch of, versus one that lives in the same country and spends most of his/her time towards that country. So yes, fully understand that from a New Zealand perspective the difference would be minimal. I still like the idea that the Windsor family members are assigned to different countries, so they will finally have a monarch who lives 'in-country' (yes, I know it is a fantasy but I still like the idea ).

Yes, that is it exactly. They do not reside here, therefore have no real influence or standing here. It would be completely different if we had our own royal family living in NZ.

And I totally love your little fantasy idea! The only problem is no one would want the York's. I'll put my hand up and say can we have the Wessex's? Afterall Edward did live in NZ for a while and tutored at Whanganui College. And I don't think we can go for any of the 'big guns'.

 

[M. Payton]

I would call myself a Monarchist, not a Royalist. Why am i a Monarchist? Because i believe that Monarchy offers the most stable form of Government ( Greek Republic tottering ) provides a link between a Nation`s past and present ( Who was French President in 1952? ) and creates a bond between Sovereign and subjects, in time of National peril ( WWI & II ) Would i ever be happy living in a white-collar Republic, serving a here today and gone tomorrow, President?

I am 100% with you on the way you express yourself about being a monarchist. I live in a republic and it is embarrassing for many decades now, not one president can I look to for leadership or dignity.

 

[Jacknch]

Just as a reminder, we have the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ada-residences-governor-general-etc-7388.html thread to talk specifically about the monarchy and Canada. Thanks.

 

[Purrs]

You don''t have to have a president who is the combined symbolic head and actual head of the state (like the USA) to have a republic.

You can have a parliamentary system of government without a monarch as the symbolic head of the country but someone else (regardless of what name you call them.)

There are other choices than a constitutional monarchy and a republic with a single leader (actual and symbolic.)

Some of the countries that have chosen this system of government (real leader & a symbolic leader who is not a monarch) are: Germany, Iceland, Ireland and the Czech republic. They all have parliaments with an actual leader and a symbolic leader who is NOT a monarch.

One of the reasons why I don't like the concept of a monarchy is it is by heredity and lifelong. Sometimes you get a monarch who does a splendid job (like Queen Elisabeth II and her father), other times you get a disaster (as Edward VIII would have been had he remained King, thank goodness he abdicated. How would you remove him if he had refused to abdicate? A coup d'etat? A revolution? There doesn't seem to be anyway to peacefully remove a monarch who is incapable or destructive to a country. If Edward VIII had remained King, the Nazis would probably have never been defeated and the world would look very different.) As well, the principle of inequality inherent in monarchies bothers me greatly. I reject the idea that someone is better than others due to their birth.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think the question is about who is 'better'. Even in republics with a symbolic leader, it is not necessarily 'the best person' who is made head of state.

To me it is about responsibility. Typically the ones born for it wouldn't have chosen it. This means that they are not in form the job because of personal gain but from a very young age they are normally ingrained with the idea that their position brings about a lot of responsibilities (and many teenage prince(sse)s and some well into their twenties wrestle with this idea before they reconcile themselves with it; and start to see the opportunities it brings).

 

[Purrs]

:
To me it is about responsibility. Typically the ones born for it wouldn't have chosen it. This means that they are not in form the job because of personal gain but from a very young age they are normally ingrained with the idea that their position brings about a lot of responsibilities (and many teenage prince(sse)s and some well into their twenties wrestle with this idea before they reconcile themselves with it; and start to see the opportunities it brings).

I think Queen Elizabeth II and her father are wonderful examples of this, especially since neither expected to become the monarch (especially her father.) I admire both of them for their sense of duty and commitment.

However, from everything I've understand, there's little evidence that her uncle would have ever ruled responsibly, despite growing up as the heir apparent and probably hearing this all of his life. He was 42 when he abdicated. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for dealing with a monarch who is ill suited. (I realize it is often hard to remove politicians from office but it seems impossible to peacefully remove a monarch.) This is part of the reason why I answered "no" to the title of this thread "are you are a royalist?" (and obviously I'm not a monarchist either.)

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I think a constitutional monarchy is an effective form of government. As a citizen of the USA, I am definitely a republican.

Episcogal, I agree that a constitutional monarchy is effective. It is good that a monarch's regulations are written and recorded in a constitution.

 

[Somebody]

I think Queen Elizabeth II and her father are wonderful examples of this, especially since neither expected to become the monarch (especially her father.) I admire both of them for their sense of duty and commitment.

However, from everything I've understand, there's little evidence that her uncle would have ever ruled responsibly, despite growing up as the heir apparent and probably hearing this all of his life. He was 42 when he abdicated. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for dealing with a monarch who is ill suited. (I realize it is often hard to remove politicians from office but it seems impossible to peacefully remove a monarch.) This is part of the reason why I answered "no" to the title of this thread "are you are a royalist?" (and obviously I'm not a monarchist either.)

I understand your reasoning although I would hope that there would be people of influence to talk heirs out of it if truly necessary. Typically a wedding (quite important for a heir) would be a moment in which to get rid of a (future) monarch if deemed necessary; and in those cases I would especially expect pressure from the family as turning into a republic would be a very likely option in such a case.

So there are some ways to deal with this. Sometimes other measures are taken, for example Astrid and her children were introduced in the lone of succession because of worries about Laurent.

 

[MARG]

I am a Monarchist and am firmly committed to our system of a Constitutional Monarchy. In a small country like NZ having a President would be both expensive and perhaps a little pretentious. So perhaps I am a royalist too


To those that think there is no way to remove an unsuitable Monarch I would differ. Edward thought he could present Wallis as a done deal. In the face of a governmental resignation he did the only thing he could. HE abdicated.

To a lesser degree the same thing happened to King Juan Carlos, scandal caused pressure to be exerted. Much the same as the King of the Belgians.

 

[Mbruno]

I am a Monarchist and am firmly committed to our system of a Constitutional Monarchy. In a small country like NZ having a President would be both expensive and perhaps a little pretentious. So perhaps I am a royalist too


To those that think there is no way to remove an unsuitable Monarch I would differ. Edward thought he could present Wallis as a done deal. In the face of a governmental resignation he did the only thing he could. HE abdicated.

To a lesser degree the same thing happened to King Juan Carlos, scandal caused pressure to be exerted. Much the same as the King of the Belgians.

On top of that, some constitutions , for example in the Netherlands, actually allow parliament to suspend the King from the exercise of the royal prerrogativa on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers and having heard the Council of State. The practical result of that suspension is the establishment of a regency.

In the UK, a vote in parliament is not even necessary. The Regency Act allows a regency to be set up solely on the recommendation of three out of the five following persons: the monarch’s consort, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls. Presumably, the recommendation must be supported by evidence , but the text of the act properly does not constrain the evidence to be medical only,.

 

[Lilyflo]

I'm currently a monarchist here in the UK but that would change if we had a monarch who wasn't up to the role but not bad enough to get rid of. Both Charles & William seem OK to me so I don't envisage becoming a republican. I like our UK traditions & it wouldn't feel British to have a president instead but there are some people in the line of succession who are too pompous &/or arrogant to ever get my support. Fortunately, they're unlikely ever to be in that position.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

I am not either monarchist nor republican. For me it is very same so long when a country is democratically ruled and respects human rights. And of course if country is otherwise sanely ruled. I follow some royal families but I am not royalist. Might be different thing if Finland would had become kingdom.