Elective or Hereditary Monarchy?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Malaysian monarchy is not so much elective as rotational.
The nine traditional rulers take their turn serving as Head of State unless circumstrances intervene (eg age, illness, infirmity, unfitness).
The "election", such as it is, is made by the rulers themselves.

Selecton of a Saudi Crown Prince (and thus future King) is made from within and by a very tight and small inner circle of Princes, not from amongst the estimated 7000 Princes belonging to the House of Saud. The most recent, Crown Prince Salman (appointed last week), like all previous Crown Princes is a son of the Founder of the Saudi State, King Abdul-Aziz.

As AmericanDane has pointed out, the Vatican City State is the best example of an elective monarchy and it is the College of Cardinals who form the electorate. It is only relatively recently that the formal and grand ceremony of Papal coronation (with a crown, aka the Papal Tiara) was dispensed with.

The Papacy bears a similarity to the position of the Dalai Lama, the god-king of Tibet, who is selected (albeit at a much younger age!) by the High Lamas.
.
 
Monarchy would be less interesting if elected. Iwould find it very difficult to say "Your Majesty" to a monarch who has been elected in some form! :)
 
Or how heavily the life of the President of the United States is controlled by secret service for fear he shall be assassinated by either fanatics and other deranged individuals? I don't recall having ever heard of the Queen having viles of her own blood in the trunk of her Bentley..

Not an equal comparison. The POTUS is very much a political position - also one with tremendous power and wealth behind it and therefore of great consequence to many people everywhere. Unfortunately - as even celebrities can attest - such fame (in his case power) brings out the crazies.

The British sovereign does not have power so is not a threat in fact or in any one's imaginings. However, the constraints placed on her for her entire life are enormous. Something unfair about the scenario.

And my opinion is based on the fact that I live within a constitutional and hereditary monarchy and believe in what it represents and stands for.

What I am bringing to the foreground is that the system traps people in lives that perhaps brings them great unhappiness - and that there might be a better way to have both a monarchy but not be a gilded system of servitude.

US Presidents endure their restricted lives for 4 to 8 years. It is also a personal choice they can walk away from. The position is far from being ceremonial - and the perks far outweigh the constraints - for the personalities who seek such power and position.

It may not, but the fact remains there is procedure in place to accommodate any such situation. It's not that I bring a different sensibility to the matter, it's just fact.

You made it sound like a 'no problem' situation were someone to decide to take another path rather than become sovereign - hence my comment to you. Others seem to feel that even though there is an abdication mechanism - to go that route again would end the monarchy. A point of view, by the way, that I don't understand - I don't get why another abdication would spell the end of the monarchy. Like everyone is saying - it seems to me that it is the very mechanism that ensures the monarchy would go on.

Because I didn't find it worthwhile elaborating on. Such 'what if's' seem a rather futile prospect in conversation. Addressing any such uncertainty as though probable makes little sense.

Oh. I see it as part of the conversation - and very much so. How are those eventualities dealt with? The Prince Regent had quite a yo-yo experience around just such a problem - and it wasn't anything as gentle as a neurosis. Would the monarchy be able to deal with such now in the same way?
 
Last edited:
Unless we are referring to "electing" a line of monarchs to pass the Crown from one generation to another according to an order of succession like the way the Act of Settlement of 1701 operates as Iluvbertie said, then I really don't see the point of an elective monarchy.


Is that the case always, though, or just where arranged like that? There have been lots of monarchies where the heir was chosen by the reigning sovereign - China comes to mind.

The above scenario would allow a royal family - perhaps in council, not just the current King or Queen - to choose that person from the next generation (or even same generation) that most exhibits the requisite attributes and willingness to fulfill the function.

This might truly be a more modern way to address the function of sovereign.

I'm afraid that this idea is quite ridiculous from where I see the issue. I really can't imagine the Royal Family sitting around a table saying "Well, Mummy/Granny is going to die soon, I think I should be the next King. You, my brother/sister/niece/nephew/cousin, will get the job over my dead body!". And how often would they have this discussion? I'm sure 30 or so years ago Charles would have been elected by this little family convention as the best person to lead the monarchy into the modern era, but what would they have all been thinking when his first marriage went awry and he was recorded wanting to be reincarnated as his mistress's tampon? Who would the heir presumptive been then? How often would they change their minds based on the latest opinion polls? Living in a country where government policy is changing everytime the latest Newspoll is published in the newspapers makes me hostile to such a futile change.

The only "modern" thing to come from such an arrangement is the curse of popularity that plagues modern politics for worse, not better. Even if it was to be an elective monarchy along the Vatican lines with some sort of college/conclave selecting the monarch, who would make up this conclave? The Commons? The Lords? The Hereditary Peers? And what about the Commonwealth Realms, as Madame Royale rightly pointed out?

I also highly dispute this idea that the monarchy would end if there was another abdication. If the monarch was doing more harm than good I think it would strengthen the institution, as happened after Edward VIII abdicated.
 
Last edited:
You made it sound like a 'no problem' situation were someone to decide to take another path rather than become sovereign

I don't believe I did, no.

However, the constraints placed on her for her entire life are enormous. Something unfair about the scenario.

Fortunately, my Queen appears a woman of sensible reason. This is her life and she gets on with the business of it accordingly. We are all accidents of birth, and some are born into positions of immense privelege, wealth and responsibility. Others climb the social and political ladder, some buy their way and then there are those who are elected (perhaps also a question of having bought their way to the top).

It would not matter who sat on the throne, the burden of responsibility remains much the same as abdication is not an eventual pre-requisite to reign and is thus considered a lifelong term otherwise.

I affirm my belief that in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth, that this model of government is a success. Constitutional hereditary monarchy works and it works very well for the countries that have it.

It is also a personal choice they can walk away from.

As can a sovereign should they choose to do so for whatever personal reason/s. It's not ideal, obviously, just as it would not be ideal for any President to discharge his term in office, but it's happened and people get on with it whether it be a constitutional hereditary monarchy or a federal constitutional republic.
 
Last edited:
Sweden was for a long time an elective monarchy, it was first after the accession of Gustav Vasa to the throne in 1523 Sweden became a hereditary monarchy. Even if it before then often was the son of the former king who became king, there were several occasions when a non-relative became the next king. It was even written in an old Swedish law, Västgötalagen, that Svear (Swedes) had the right to choose as well as oust their king. The new king had to be acknowledged at Mora Stenar, where also some kings were elected: Stones of Mora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and to do a Eriksgata and visit the different provinces to be accepted as king. The name Eriksgata is still used for the first visit a new king makes to a Swedish province.
 
To me the main attraction of Western European-style monarchy is that it is not political. Making it elective would make it political.
 
To me the main attraction of Western European-style monarchy is that it is not political. Making it elective would make it political.

:previous:
I agree with the bolded above, but an elective monarchy can be apolitical: the monarch or a council of royal family members decide on the heir (and their decision can change due to circumstances) and not the public.
 
Let's say a son and a daughter was born to a royal. The son came first and then the daughter. Because of being first born and a son, the son would be the heir to the throne in most countries in the world. It wouldn't be by vote, but by birth order.

You could have a situation where you have an male heir to the throne who was a party animal or someone who could care less about current events in the world, or someone who could care less about things that someone to who is the heir to the throne should be concerned about. Or the person might not be capable of being a Monarch for various other reasons.

Today if you had a situation like that, others would step up to the plate and protect the Monarch or try to conceal the fact that this person isn't suited for the job. In the old days, this could be a threat to the Monarch's life or throne.

On the other hand, his sister or a younger brother could be more suited to the job. In this situation arose, an elective monarch would be the best.

There are pitfalls to elective Monarchy as the most popular male (usually male) would be the Monarch but that doesn't mean that they are suited to the job or capable of doing the job. Another pitful would be if someone was elected and others felt like they had been robbed of the opportunity. At least with Hereditary Monarchy, you can't claim this.

There are some good and bad points to both but I'm leaning towards Hereditary Monarchy.
 
Once you make it elective, it is political. Why would you need a monarch? At best, it is because they inherit their position, which is, cermonial. If you elected someone, they would, I assume, responsibility and decision making.
 
Ive read about situations where the next in line is chosen from a group of potential candidates. It is an interesting situation for me because especially in England the one who is not the heir is often portrayed and treated like the naughty bad kid brother or sister while the oldest is regarded as a saint. What would the situaiton be like if the heir title wasn't automatically given to the first born and instead it wouldn't be known who would be the next monarch until the current monarch died. All the children are treated equally and given the same opportunities, just perhaps one will emerge as a better candidate.
I also wonder if such a situation had taken place in Sweden if Carl Philip would have acted differently and focused more time on issues rather than racing cars. JW
The bad side to this is that elections can be corrupt, manipulated and bought.
 
Ive read about situations where the next in line is chosen from a group of potential candidates. [...] What would the situaiton be like if the heir title wasn't automatically given to the first born and instead it wouldn't be known who would be the next monarch until the current monarch died. All the children are treated equally and given the same opportunities, just perhaps one will emerge as a better candidate.[...] The bad side to this is that elections can be corrupt, manipulated and bought.

Agree. It would mean that someone clearly not suited could be politely passed over. It also means that someone who very much does not want to be the monarch, who would find the lifestyle onerous and the cause for great personal discomfort and even unhappiness, could graciously withdraw without causing a crisis. What makes this an appealing option is that it means a person is free to choose their destiny. They are not 'enslaved' - and in this time of the world I think that is important.

The politics you mention perhaps could be avoided by weighted votes - for example, the previous monarch's vote (recorded as in a Will) might count more. The monarch's spouse might be weighted second - then the vote of the siblings and then the State Councillors (I may be naming them incorrectly). Anyway, it could be worked out - and there could be checks and balances. It could even be the 'election' takes place before the monarch dies and there is a period of training. IMO this would be a significant modernization - and when one considers it - it's more humane.
 
Last edited:
A hereditary monarchy is better.
From childhood the King's son or daughter knows that one day when he (she) grows up, he (she) will be the Sovereign.
They have time to learn what it takes to be a working Royal and future monarch.
 
Truth. Hereditary monarchy is better.
The person is then prepared from childhood to be a monarch.
 
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 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....

:flowers:

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...
 
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.
 
'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.
 
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 ?
 
probably because it works - so why fix it, while it works?
 
Duc_et_Pair;175753... The definition of a monarchy is: a system of state in which the highest office is fulfilled [I said:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations on your first post. :flowers:

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".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Congratulations on your first post. :flowers:

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
 
Last edited:
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. :D

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
We are not done yet, you know. :D

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
First things first, welcome to the forum Prince of Bohemia :flowers:

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. ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom