The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 03-11-2015, 05:11 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,011
The question is impossible. The definition of a monarchy is: a system of state in which the highest office is fulfilled by hereditary succession.

The Pope is often seen as a monarch but he is elected by the Conclave. At the other hand one can argue that a hereditary succession is impossible when the head of state always is a man living in celibate....



The Republic of the United Provinces was in name a republic but no any citizen ever elected the highest office. From the beginning of the Republic, the office of the Stadtholder was fulfilled by members of the princely family Orange-Nassau. The office was formally declared hereditary twice and the line of the Stadtholders is continued in the current royal family of the Netherlands...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-11-2015, 09:46 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Another way of looking at it is that a child has no choice about how to live their lives - it is dictated for them as an act of chance - basically they are a slave to their position as they don't have the basic freedoms the rest of us have.


The monarch is denied many human rights.
The child, the heir, will still have rights.
However he may be under more restrictions and regulations.
For example, he is old enough to color in his coloring book. He selects the one he wants and the pages he shall color.
When he is old enough to attend government meetings with the King, he knows it his duty. He will hopefully do it willingly, not because he must.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-11-2015, 10:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,015
'Hopefully' he will do it willingly - why should he have to do it at all - if he doesn't want to do so? That is my whole point - he won't have a choice about what he has to do - he will have to attend those meetings and won't be allowed to make his views made public either - another denial of human rights - you and I can make our views known but a monarch can't do so.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-28-2016, 03:31 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 1
The monarchy

Hello !! =) We were talking with friends the other day about the monarchy and I have a question regarding it in particular why do you still have it ?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-28-2016, 03:52 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 531
probably because it works - so why fix it, while it works?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-28-2016, 04:04 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair;175753... The definition of a monarchy is: a system of state in which the highest office is fulfilled [I
by hereditary succession.
[/I]
...
I disagree on your definition, there where monarchies in history and there are still monarchies in place where it is in the grace of the monarche to name the successor (middle east). In anchient Rome the next monarch would be adopted by his predecessor - or he would be 'lifted on the shields' - or proclamed by the members of the palace guard.

In far east are also monarchies who change the head of stated between diffrent families on a regular basis.

So - there are many diffrent varieties to how monarchies are working - as well as democracies.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-30-2017, 01:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 6
Elective Monarchy in UK?

I once read a post here, which was discussing the possibility of an elective monarchy in United Kingdom instead of the hereditary one. Most people had an idea that elective monarchy would either mean an internal choosing of an heir by the royal family, or full blown elections of the King by the people. None of these would make much sense imo, the internal choosing doesnt do anything about the inherently unfair system of hereditary royalty, while public elections of monarch dont really make sense, because that system could no longer be called monarchy, even if the head of state would be called king/queen. However, throughout history there have been multiple forms of elective monarchies and I believe it is indeed possible to create a system that would get rid of the hereditary aspect, while still being a legitemate monarchy.

So my idea is that the monarch would be elected by the House of Lords for life, from among the peers of UK (not just members of HoL), there would be age limitation, at least 40 I would say, but thats debatable. The members of HoL would be elected from among the peers of UK by the peers. Regarding the peerages, there would be no hereditary peers, all peers would be appointed by the monarch (with approval of the House of Lords) for life, with possibility of revocation. These newly created peereges would be accompanied by a title of nobility (baron, earl, duke, etc.), these could be inherited by children of the holder acording to absolute primogeniture, unlike the peerages themselves. Monarch would appoint people who have in some way done service for the country and deserve the honour.

The Church of England would be separated from the institution of the monarchy. There would no longer be any reserved places for the bishops in HoL. The monarch would no longer be the head of the Church of England, however the coronation or some other ceremonies could still be performed by them.

Now regarding the privileges of the monarch, I think current state is appropriate enough and should remain the same to make the transition as simple as possible. Since the monarch would be elected, there wouldnt be any royal family, the children or other relatives would not receive any royal titles or special privileges, the only exeption would be the spouse of the monarch, who would receive the title of Queen/Prince consort. The monarch would probably also receive the title Prince of Wales, since there wouldnt be any heir apparent.

This would of corse mean the royal family would lose their royal titles, however they could still retain their duchies and other non-royal titles. The other pre-existing titles held by british nobility could go on unchanged acording to previous laws, only without the hereditary peerages and other special privileges, if there are still any left.

Notice that the popular opinion does not effect the system at any stage, it is closed circle between the monarch, HoL and the peers, hence this could still be called monarchy, non-hereditary elective constitutional monarchy, to be precise. Similar systems have existed in Europe particulary in Poland or Sweden, the closest current example would be Vatican city.

You might say now, that this solves nothing, since it is still not very democratic. However since the monarch would have mostly symbolical role it is not neccesary to have direct elections for the monarch. In many parliamentary republics the head of state isnt elected directly either, but via the parliament, albeit elected parliament. It also insures that the possition of monarchy doesnt become political. The main point is to create a fair system where everyone, if he/she is capable enough and deserves it, can reach even the highest positions, such as the head of state, instead of having it decided by birth.

There were times when it was more or less neccesary to have rulership passed hereditarily, since there was too much political instability, constant wars for power and territory and vastly uneducated population. However such times are long gone. Sytem, such as the one I described, would imo be a merger of traditions with modern values and could not only be implemented in UK, but elswehe too.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-30-2017, 02:01 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,801
Congratulations on your first post.

I see a number of problems though.

The first one is: Why elect a monarch in the first place? - The advantages of that being?

It's undemocratic, since only the House of Lords is involved. - That IMO would remove the monarchy from the majority of the people, not getting it closer. It'll become a rule by nobility and even more irrelevant to a lot of people!

How do you avoid this becoming political?

How do you select the candidates?

- The concept of electing a monarch only makes sense if the monarch has power. Otherwise it's a popularity contest.

The advantages with a monarchy where the throne is inherited is that you know the person all his/her life and that person will almost invariably try and do his best with the abilities he has. For better or worse. Usually an heir grows with the job and in that way is very much someone to look up to. Otherwise he may to face the shame of being the last of his line. That's a heavy incentive to do his very best.
An elected monarch doesn't have that burden upon his shoulders. Doesn't have to walk past the paintings of his ancestors looking disapprovingly back at him.

And remember even a monarch who has inherited the throne can always be "abdicated".
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-30-2017, 02:16 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 2,945
1. Welcome to TRF! And I hope you will find it interesting.

2. My response to your post: Why change a system that has 70-80% (sometimes over 80%) support in the population (that's the case in the UK, Denmark and Norway) and according to many constitutional experts, the best system one can have.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-30-2017, 03:36 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Congratulations on your first post.

I see a number of problems though.

The first one is: Why elect a monarch in the first place? - The advantages of that being?

It's undemocratic, since only the House of Lords is involved. - That IMO would remove the monarchy from the majority of the people, not getting it closer. It'll become a rule by nobility and even more irrelevant to a lot of people!

How do you avoid this becoming political?

How do you select the candidates?

- The concept of electing a monarch only makes sense if the monarch has power. Otherwise it's a popularity contest.

The advantages with a monarchy where the throne is inherited is that you know the person all his/her life and that person will almost invariably try and do his best with the abilities he has. For better or worse. Usually an heir grows with the job and in that way is very much someone to look up to. Otherwise he will may to face the shame of being the last of his line. That's a heavy incentive to do his very best.
An elected monarch doesn't have that burden upon his shoulders. Doesn't have to walk past the paintings of his ancestors looking disapprovingly back at him.

And remember even a monarch who has inherited the throne can always be "abdicated".
Advantage of electing a monarch is that, like I said, it would get rid of the inherently unfair system of inhering an entire country on the merit of birth. You said that by having hereditary monarchy, we know the person the whole life. Well thats not much different from elective monarchy either, presumably it wouldnt be just some random guy who would get elected, but someone who has devoted his entire life to serving his country, in whatever way. Imagine if Queen Elisabeth, Prince Charles and Prince William would all die in this instant. The throne would pass to 3 years old George. How good do we know him?

Of course it cant be entirely guarranteed that the monarchy would stay away from politics at all times. However that certainly isnt the case now either. Prince Charles in particular, as well as other members of the royal family have been on many occasions involved in politics. People in such high possitions are simply going to be somewhat involved in politics. However I dont see any reason why elected monarch should be involved in politics any more than unelected one. Also the absence of royal family would significantly reduce involvement of the monarchy in politics.

I dont imagine there would be some campaigns to become king, since the general public doesnt decide that anyway. I suppose it would be internal discussion among the members of the HoL about which one of the peers (doesnt necessarily have to be member of the HoL) would be the best suited for the possition of the monarch. Since the monarch doesnt wield any significant power anyway and is mostly simbolical and the whole process would be, no doubt, very closely watched by the public, I dont think there would be too much bribery or political machinations going on during the election of new monarch. And no, it would definitely not be a popularity contest, since, once again, the general public would not be involved. And I have no doubt there are many people in UK who could carry out the duties of a monarch as well or better than any member of the royal family.

While general public doesnt decide dirrectly who woll be the next monarch, all peers and members of HoL would have been nominated from general public, on basis of merit. Thats fair enough, the monarch has only symbolical role and there are, arguably, many more important and influential public offices that are not directly decided on by general public.

You say elected monarch would have no burden, since he doesnt have to answer to his dead relatives. I would claim otherwise. The elected monarch would have especially high burden, since he would have to answer only to the people, living ones. An elected monarch, who was probably not even born noble and only recieved his peerige long after he was born, would be under very high preassure to make a good job of it, since beeign elected a monarch is really as high honour as it gets. If the members of HoL elected only half decent individual (which I have no doubt they would, since the peers themselves would be nominated from the very best of British society), he/she would not have any more trouble beeing a monarch than Queen Elisabeth.

Btw thx for a reply :) Hopefully I answered all your questions
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-30-2017, 04:12 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of Bohemia View Post

Btw thx for a reply :) Hopefully I answered all your questions
You are welcome.
No, not all of them and now I'm going to pressure you even more.

You still haven't answered the question of electing a monarch satisfactorily I think.
The whole concept of monarchy is a family that has been in the lead for generations at the very least, often many centuries, as such that family-line is deeply connected with and anchored in the very fabric of a nation. Including history, culture and many trials. - For good or worse.
That means the whole concept of the monarch is personal thing. A personal pact between the people, the nation and the monarch.

What you are proposing is for a select elite to choose who they happen to think is the best suited (read palatable, read manageable, read politically correct, read won't turn against their interest) candidate.
That is the very reason I personally is against a republic in my own country. Because the president will not be a man of the people, voted by the people, for the people. - It will be the candidate for the elite who happens to be in power.
Not only that ,they are supposed to select the candidate from an extended family, who out of necessity has to provide their own living and build up their own lives, just in case they are not elected. - With all the problems that entails. - That alone makes a political neutral candidate near impossible. You can't run several estates and manage a fortune without having a political stance to some extant and without having to deal with someone in power - who in return influence you.

The current royals can, albeit with difficulty stay politically neutral, because their life is fixed. They know what they are going to do the rest of their lives and can commit themselves fully to that purpose.
That includes education.
If I know I have only a say 40% chance of becoming the next monarch, I will focus my education on something that will secure me financially. I simply have to. - And then one day, ups, I'm the monarch. But I haven't studied foreign affairs that much, I haven't had a military career to think of, I haven't had that many altruistic protections. - Why should I?
That means I'm actually less prepared that someone who from birth knew he would be the next monarch.

Okay we have a monarch, who has been selected by an elite - a committee if you will. And usually the candidate selected by a committee is pretty bland and uninteresting and certainly someone who will not rock the boat. A boring talking head. - Uninspiring. - Someone who will have problems being a focal point for the people, simply because the people can't connect with him.
It's easier to connect with someone you have followed all his life (even if you are against the monarchy), who you have seen grow, make mistakes, mature, heard say stupid things, seen connect with people, seen being shy - seen being a human being.

To say that the monarch only has a symbolic role is to have completely misunderstood what the monarchy means to people. In times of crisis it's the monarch people tend to rally around, the monarch people look to, it's the monarch you celebrate things with (or alternatively have a great time complaining about) and if the monarch is less than competent, we look forward to the heir taking over.
It's not the politicians, because a lot of us haven't voted for that politician and often can't stand the sight of him either. While a monarch is there, period!

If the remove the burden of your ancestors looking over your shoulders, you also remove an incentive to do the best job possible, no matter what, no matter the adversities. Because who would be willing to voluntarily sign up for such a job, unless you desire it? And that IMO makes you less suited. - If the going gets tough, why not sign off? It's easier to do, if you know you won't be the first and last of your line.
A monarch serves the country and the people - for life. Someone who desires to become a monarch does it first and foremost for his own interests. I.e. glory, fame, a place in history - and also to serve the country, if there is time...

So what you are proposing is an elected head of state, with the title of king/queen, a president with another title but it's not a monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-30-2017, 04:31 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,184
I honestly don't see the reasoning behind one.

What would be the point? The monarchy is a figure head. They don't hold any real political power. They simply represent the country. The idea of holding an election among the elite to choose a figure head seems pointless. Now if we were to suggest the monarch could choose their own successor among their family, that has slightly more reasoning. The queen knows her role and her family better than any. Perhaps there is an heir better suited.

Having the House of Lords choose is not in any way more democratic. It isn't allowing the people to choose. It's an elite group of people.

Like a republic, the U.K. does elect its leaders. The one with actual political power, the prime minister and other officials. These are the ones with actual power and the people vote.

That is why there isn't much call for a republic in Canada. Canadians may complain about taxes to the queen. But the majority don't consider the 'head of state issue'. The queen is on our money and comes to visit once in a while. When we talk about our leader we talk about Trudeau. Trudeau is our elected head of government. The queen and Governor General are figure heads.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-30-2017, 04:36 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,801
We are not done yet, you know.

Now, let's imagine your system is in place in Britain.

We are now writing 2012. Charles' 40 year reign is soon ending, in five years a new monarch must be crowned.

We have currently a number of candidates.

Andrew is too old and has a divorced wife in the baggage. Then we have Edward, he's getting a bit old too, but still young enough to be a candidate.

Then we have William, who is marrying Kate. So far so good, but we haven't seen them together on the job.

We have Harry, who is serving his country in the military and is actually pretty good at connecting with people - that is when he isn't drunk or naked.

Eugenie and Beatrice. Very young. Haven't really made a mark in the public eye. Haven't got any noticeable protections.
Their education hasn't been aimed at them taking part in state affairs.

Who would you choose?
Who can you choose?
How can you foresee how they will turn out?
Who back in 2012 would the majority of the people, who you represent with your vote, choose?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-30-2017, 05:35 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 6
Monarchy doesnt neccessarily have to mean that family rules for centuries, there have been elective monarchies in the past in Europe. As an example I can point to Kingdom of Bohemia where just in 15th century, there have been 5 different dynasties on the throne.

You complain the monarch would be selected by elite (HoL). If you grab some hobbo and you then make him a peer and he gets elected into the HoL, well yes, he is part of elite now. Thats not much of an arguement, people iin high positions are elite by definitions. The royal family is the very epiphany of elite. Hoever you will never be able to become part of royal family, you can only be born into it, thats as elitist as it gets.

Nobody will think, "oh, I have only 40% chance of becoming the next monarch, what should I do now??". If you arent an accomplished adult who has for decades greatly contributed to the society, then you certainly would not be one of the peers. Also there will be at least couple hundrets of peers, not 3, no one person could claim to have 40% chance, nobody will be waiting arround to become the next monarch.

You say the elected candidate would be bland. Well the reason most politicians are (or at least appear) bland is because their main goal is to remain in power - to be reelected. For that they have to be "mainstreem" - ie. bland. The monarch however would not be elected for 4 years, but for life. Also the current queen Elisabeth appears pretty bland to me. I have never seen her do anything out of the ordinary, she is beeign driven arround and waves at people, I watched her speeches, they are all spineless and shallow, written by other people, she probably never said a word of her own to the general public. If thats not bland I dont know what is. People connect with people they like, queen Elisabeth is well liked, people connect with her. Prince Charles is not liked at all, people dont connect with him. Doesnt matter if you are royal or not, have you ever seen a rally of american presidents? They are elected and many people connect with them just fine. They might not have 80% approval like Queen Elisabeth, but I am sure Prince Charles wont have either.

And yes, monarchy in UK is symbolic for at least last 2 centuries. You say people rally arround the monarch in times of crisis. What exactly you mean by that? When people lost their homes during 2008 financial crisis, I didnt see Queen Elisabeth taking them in to sleep over in Buckingham palace.

"If the remove the burden of your ancestors looking over your shoulders, you also remove an incentive to do the best job possible, no matter what, no matter the adversities."
Some people couldnt care less about their dead relatives, I suspect that applies to the royals too. This certainly doesnt guarantee that they are best fit for the job, or that they are somehow gonna be better, because their ancestors had the job too. The royals have less of a burden because they have been born into it, they didnt work for, they didnt say they want it, therefore nobody can really blaim them if they are terrible, that lowers the burden significantly. If you are born ordinary citizen and you get to become the new monarch, it is a very high burden, since nobody forced you to do it, you were willing to take the job and people now naturally expect the best of you.

Yes, you might say there is no point for such reform anyway, that is "if it aint broke dont fix it" mentality. The current system might work just fine, but absolutism worked just fine too. "if it aint broke dont fix it" is no arguement.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-30-2017, 05:37 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 435
First things first, welcome to the forum Prince of Bohemia

I have read your post with great interest, and its a great topic. Here is my two cents worth on the subject of the possibility of a British electoral monarchy (sorry if anyone has already made any of these points)

- Although its hard to guess at times the monarchy is already electoral in that under the current Succession Laws Parliament chooses the monarch and can unchoose the monarch if it is deemed necessary to do so - Edward VIII being the last case of this happening. This has been the case since 1688 when James II was deposed in favour of William of Orange, and indeed it's debatable if it ever was in the first place. Although I'm not sure if its still the case Catholics are excluded from the line of succession along with a raft of other requirements, with the Lords and Commons in effect being a royal electoral college. How does this precisely differ from your proposal?

- Since the British monarch is also Head of State in a number of other countries, would these countries be able to have a say in the choosing process? Lets imagine the national legislatures in these countries also go through the voting process in the same way, would it therefore need to be unianmous from all countries or simply a 2/3rds vote in favour of the winning candidate? What if one country wanted somone else apart from the winning candiditade but did not want a republic? What would happen in that case?

- part of the appeal of modern monarchy is the ease of choosing the successor in the hereditary fashion, which is a quick, simple and predictable means of choosing a head of state, which historically came into being to avoid succession wars and the patrimony being divided every time the old king died back in times of yore. I am aware that electoral monarchies have been common in European history (Poland is the prime example but also historic Bohemia, Hungary and Netherlands, Venice, and the Papal States to some extent) and are still the norm in a number of Asian and ME states as the monarch is often possessed of serious executive power and thus picking the most capapabe candidate is of great importance, and in historical instances it was to maintain the balence of power among the great magnets to avoid a candidate that would favour one side more than the other. However for a relatively powerless constitional monarchy this voting seems more about popularity. Popularity is important for modern monarchy but as I've said in other posts, if it becomes too much of a popularity contest than the logic behind it is weakened and calls the whole instition into question, and electing whatever celebrity of the month would soon become the next royal candidate. ?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-30-2017, 06:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels View Post
First things first, welcome to the forum Prince of Bohemia

I have read your post with great interest, and its a great topic. Here is my two cents worth on the subject of the possibility of a British electoral monarchy (sorry if anyone has already made any of these points)

- Although its hard to guess at times the monarchy is already electoral in that under the current Succession Laws Parliament chooses the monarch and can unchoose the monarch if it is deemed necessary to do so - Edward VIII being the last case of this happening. This has been the case since 1688 when James II was deposed in favour of William of Orange, and indeed it's debatable if it ever was in the first place. Although I'm not sure if its still the case Catholics are excluded from the line of succession along with a raft of other requirements, with the Lords and Commons in effect being a royal electoral college. How does this precisely differ from your proposal?
?
It differs quite a bit. Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, only the descendants of Sophia of Hannover (daughter of Bohemian king btw) can become a monarch, along with the other requirements. And in all practical purposes UK is hereditary monarchy, even if there are some legal technicalities. My proposal would essentially allow any British citizen to become monarch, however they would need to be made a peer of UK first, with peerages beeing non-hereditary.

The Commonwealth realms would be a complication of course, its hard to predict how would all of them react. Some of them, perhaps most, would leave and become either monarchies on their own or republics.

Yes, the hereditary succesion is as fast and easy it gets, thats for sure. And I suppose its a matter of preference. As long as people are ok with having hereditary dynastic head of state, it will work just fine. Once they are not though, but they would still want to call themselves the United Kingdom, my proposal, or something similar, would be a possible alternative.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-30-2017, 06:25 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,801
My own country elected it's kings for 700 years until 1660. But that was at a time when monarchs had power and it was necessary, crucial even to ensure that the line of succession was in place, simply to avoid pretenders and civil war - or invasions.

That's not an issue now, so that argument can't be used in today's world.

I see when I pressed you a bit you went from selecting the monarch from an extended family to basically all members of the House of Lords. - I.e making the whole thing even less relevant to the ordinary people.
How can you possible avoid such an election being mired in infighting, character assassinations, popularity profiling and political deals?
If you leave a choice to a select group of people, who can only and will only choose among themselves, how do you avoid them tending first and foremost to their own interests?
And usually a compromise candidate will be selected. It won't be William, it won't be Lord Drummond, who is the most competent candidate. It will be grey and bland old Lord Egghead from Whereeverhampshire. - Who the rest of the British population couldn't care less about, let alone know.
There are Germans (Who are a pretty enlightened people) who don't even know the name of their own president and more who don't care.

I don't quite agree with you that QEII is bland. She's a very skilled diplomat but first and foremost she has grown into her role, so that today she is the very definition of being a British monarch.
However, her husband and her son, Charles have certainly been controversial and whether you approve of them or not, they don't try and placate everyone - i.e. being bland.
That goes for other monarchs in Europe. King Juan Carlos saved the Spanish democracy, twice. QMII frequently cracks the whip in her New Year speeches, with a viewer rating politicians can only dream about.
King Willem-Alexander is popular and relevant in the Netherlands, not least because of his choice of wife - what if he had been bypassed?
King Phillip has stabilized the Belgian monarchy and perhaps even ensured Belgium as a nation for at least one more generation. Because he is what the two peoples in Belgium can agree on supporting.

No, QEII did not invite in homeless during the financial crisis, nor did any politician I can think of.
However, in times of war, terror or disaster, QEII is the one people listen to, when she makes a comforting speech. It's the BRF people look to after a dreadful event, not so much the politicians.
And after Brexit the national sentiment in Britain has very much gone up, that includes backing the BRF. Including many of those who voted against Brexit.
QEII and her family served in war, they shared a real possibility for being hit by bombs with the people.
Harry served his country in war, earning him respect, even by his detractors.

And I can't recall the last time hundreds of thousands of Britons, let alone foreigners, gathered and celebrated a Prime Minister's birthday or a family event at Number Ten.

Yes, there are people who couldn't care less about their family history, but they probably couldn't care less about their country as well, and certainly wouldn't be bothered serving their country. - They have an option, sign out. Let the next one in line take over.
But they are actually few and far between. Most monarchs try and do their very best, to the best of their abilities. Some with less success than others. Some take everyone by surprise like King Edward who succeeded Queen Victoria. It's doubtful whether he would have been elected, but he actually did a pretty good job once he was on the throne.
There is no guarantee that once you have elected a monarch for life, he won't turn on a plate and become less than interested in the more serious parts of being a monarch. Then what? Elect a new one? - And a new one, until you finally find someone who is suitable? - Fine, but then it is no longer a monarchy.

The difference between the system you are proposing and the system that is in place today is that you elect people for life, in the hope they will do a good job, based on what is basically a qualified guess.
While the existing system groom someone for the role from the moment they are born.

The argument about absolutism doesn't hold water. Absolute absolutism doesn't work, it has never worked for more than at most a few generations. Too much depends on one person.
Which is of course why Absolutism was replaced - or the monarchy booted out.
Instead most monarchs in history have had to work within the framework of a law, the limitations of alliances and political necessities. When they failed to do so, they often ended up dead or in exile.

So we are back to square one, what you are proposing is not a monarchy, but a president with a different title.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-30-2017, 06:35 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I see when I pressed you a bit you went from selecting the monarch from an extended family to basically all members of the House of Lords. - I.e making the whole thing even less relevant to the ordinary people.
What are you talking about, electing the extended royal family was never what I was proposing. This is the second sentence of my post:

Most people had an idea that elective monarchy would either mean an internal choosing of an heir by the royal family, or full blown elections of the King by the people. None of these would make much sense imo, the internal choosing doesnt do anything about the inherently unfair system of hereditary royalty,


I specificaly said there that electing the monarch from royal family would be pointless.
My idea was actualy that all peers of UK would be eligible to be elected, not just the members of HoL, but I noticed I didnt specify that in the post.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-30-2017, 06:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,015
The last 'elected' monarch of England was Harold II - elected by the Witan in 1066.

Since then it has been by: direct inheritance, right of conquest or government interference.

Why change a system that works?

Why make it more complicated?

Why make it less stable?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-30-2017, 06:53 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of Bohemia View Post
What are you talking about, electing the extended royal family was never what I was proposing. This is the second sentence of my post:

Most people had an idea that elective monarchy would either mean an internal choosing of an heir by the royal family, or full blown elections of the King by the people. None of these would make much sense imo, the internal choosing doesnt do anything about the inherently unfair system of hereditary royalty,


I specificaly said there that electing the monarch from royal family would be pointless.
My idea was actualy that all peers of UK would be eligible to be elected, not just the members of HoL, but I noticed I didnt specify that in the post.

Ah, so the House of Lords is to select and chose a suitable candidate among all Britons?

That is the very reason why I'm very much against a republic in my own country, because who are they going to elect? - Most likely an ex-politician, because they have the influence and connections and can bestow favors... I mean come up with the most rewarding arguments for being selected.
So rather than shipping has-beens down to the EU-parliament as we do now, they will be elected king (president) instead. Thank you, but no thank you!
The most natural thing would be to appoint a former diplomat with people skills, right? They are usually out of sight to the general public most of the time.
How do you think the public interest, let alone reverence, would be for the former ambassador to Farawaystan? - Most people probably wouldn't be able to ID him in a line-up, even if he was the only one of ten not dressed as a flamingo.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
monarchy, monarchy versus republic, united kingdom


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hereditary Prince Alois (1968- ), Princess Sophie (1967- ) and Family Mandy Princely Family of Liechtenstein 273 09-27-2017 07:13 AM
Hereditary Grand Duke Jean and Princess Joséphine-Charlotte of Belgium 1953 Hannelore Royal Weddings 24 09-09-2016 05:40 AM
Hereditary Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg and María Teresa Mestre y Batista: Feb 1981 Cathérine Bergeyck Royal Weddings 91 02-14-2013 09:02 AM
The Next Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg destiny Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume & Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie 496 04-29-2010 10:42 PM
HRH Hereditary Prince Bernhard von Baden & Stephanie Kaul 2001 Elsa M. Weddings: Non-Reigning Houses & Nobility 14 09-09-2009 03:16 PM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf catherine chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duke of edinburgh fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy monarchy versus republic news november november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess margaretha of luxembourg princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia spanish jewels state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria visit to canada



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises