Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[Madame Royale]

And how long did it took for the US to end slavery, segregation or give equal rights to all its citizens?

And how long did it take for the word 'sorry' to be spoken? That indigenous communities remain some of the most underveloped in this country, that there was a white Australia policy enacted from c 1890 to 1960, or that indigenous Australian's cannot access or benefit from the same health care services due to their socio economic cirtcumstances, thus deplorable health inequality continues. And what of the recognition of Indigenous Australian's in our very own Constitution?

I have trouble understanding why you found it pertinent to make mention of another country's dirty laundry, to prove a point of sorts, when we ourselves, within this great constitutional monarchy of ours, are still faced with such issues.

And issues like these do not descriminate between forms of government.

 

[David V]

I pointed out the fact that many of the most inegalitarian societies and worst human rights abusers are not monarchies, which I always feel is something lost on those who criticise it. It wasn't even long ago that some Latin American countries were doing the sort of things that we'd rather not describe here, to their own people.

If people want to talk about money, how much does it really cost for someone to run for office? How much do people spend on their election campaign? In some countries it's a huge amount, overall more than is spent on a royal wedding for instance.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

...I really think the United States would do well under an elective monarchy.

Utterly ridiculuous. We do this already; they're called senators and representatives. They'd all be taking turns as monarch and no common citizen would EVER be appointed or voted in. Why, you ask? Because our elected officials would be in charge of who was emperor, and it would take a Constitutional amendment. The politicians would be adamant that anyone serving as emperor would have first had to have been a member of Congress. They're selfish that way.

*******************************

I find it interestin that in a country that prides itself on its democracy, and can probably call itself the oldest democracy still extant, that these two very important issues can not be changed, even by majority decision.

It's not that they CANNOT be changed. Anything can be changed by amendment, but none of our Congress is going to do that. If a state would leave the union, one of our two major political parties would lose adherents.

The United States of America is NOT a democracy; it is a representative republic.
******************************

...I hate the way the U.S. government is formed. I am actually making plans to relocate to another country because of it.

Did you learn any Civics in school? If so, you must have fortten what you learned. The U. S. Congress was based on the British Parliament. Whereas, the British have the House of Lords and the House of Commons, we have the Senate and the House of Representatives.

***************************************

Nothing in Latin America took after the United States, whose traditions were English and stable...

Take a look at Argentina's Constitution; it was originally taken, almost ver batim, from the U.S. Constitution. The latest amendments were 1954 (I think) and reformed in 1994.

 

[Jacknch]

Your 60 pence covers things like State Visits such as the recent one of the President of the US. That would still happen whether or not it was the Queen, President Blair or simply PM Cameron who was hosting the event - no saving there.

Other expenses from that 60 p is the cost of the salaries of the offiical office staff - all of whom would have to be employed elsewhere or put on benefits so again no saving there.

Exactly, Iluvbertie!

The problem with identifying the abolition of the monarchy as a way of saving money is that it could just as easily be done with abolishing the president.

It is quite clear that abolishing the presidency of Ireland or the United States or France would save those countries alot of money too. Yet the suggestion is just as unacceptable as abolishing education, the NHS, defence, the government and indeed the monarch!

 

[COUNTESS]

I don't think anyone should change their countries governing system, unless the people who "live there" want to. And, if said system, is harmful to its people. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else how to live. If people are happy with a queen or a monachy, that's what they should have. If Austrailia, in the future, votes to be a republic, that's their business.

 

[Zonk]

I don't think anyone should change their countries governing system, unless the people who "live there" want to. And, if said system, is harmful to its people. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else how to live. If people are happy with a queen or a monachy, that's what they should have. If Austrailia, in the future, votes to be a republic, that's their business.

I totally agree. There are definite positives and negatives associated with all forms of government and basically they all (with the exception of a few) operate at the will of the people.

 

[David V]

The base question is who you would prefer to represent your country- a monarch who isn't part of a political or interest group, or someone you elect that represents a political party or interest group? In many countries there are people who simply don't take part in politics because they're disgusted with the political elites' corruption and selfishness. For some people, politics is just another way to make money.

So how would abolishing existing monarchies make any difference to the well-being or fairness of the population? It wouldn't make a difference at all and in many ways would make things worse. Even in countries with "democratic" systems today you will find rampant corruption, poverty and ignorance, largely the fault of the selfish elite groups in power. Monarchies are not the cause of that.

 

[NotHRH]

NotHRH, you haven't been able to refute the arguments in favour of monarchy, or come up with what difference would it make if there weren't any. Why then have some of the more successful countries been monarchies, and many countries countries which are not are in fact very problematic?

DavidV,
Everyone thinks differently, and I have chosen to reason that monarch or sovereign is simply redundant with regard to a national government. Why have a monarch and Prime Minister or the equivalent? To economize, why not eliminate a monarchy and leave government business to the national government. Simply excising the monarch and his/her spouse's 'salary,' no matter the word used, is very economical.
David, I have introduced valid points to eliminate a monarch and his/her royal family unit. People will often ignore the validity of another person's opinion which is contrary to their own opinion. I have assessed, not ignored, other's beliefs on this particular topic. 'Sentimental value' should not be used as a basis to keep a monarch/royal family as part of a government. IMO, there is no reason to have two heads of state in one country. One hundred years ago, RF's were not used as marketing ploy - but today they are? How's that for 'heritage?'

 

[Muhler]

'Sentimental value' should not be used as a basis to keep a monarch/royal family as part of a government. IMO, there is no reason to have two heads of state in one country. One hundred years ago, RF's were not used as marketing ploy - but today they are? How's that for 'heritage?'

You mean as in promoting the national interests of their countries? Diplomatic as well as commercial.
The royals all did that a hundred years ago. They did that 500 years ago for that matter.
They did so by pulling strings, Through personal contacts, in person and so on. In all cases using their status as royals.

And again you tend to dismiss national sentiments as "sentimental values". Well, that's an opinion, which I certainly do not share. Such values are important, for good or for bad.

ADDED: A head of state, royal or not, ought to have a constitutional role of some sort. Partly to avoid having to too much power and influence in the executive branch, but also to counter the government. To have a head of state who has no power whatsoever is in my opinion meaningless. You will reduce that person to an empty suit. And that's why I believe it's sound that most royals (in Europe at least) play a constitutional role.

Combining the head of state with the head of government may be economically beneficial, I don't know, perhaps. But I think it's a good idea to keep these two roles seperate.
We have a head of state, I haven't voted for and whose politics I find..., well, I strongly disgree with and who may have made some bad choices. And that person should represent me and my country abroad? Become a rallying point in a national emergency? - Not for me. I would feel very little loyalty towards such a person and I would feel what he said was not credible at all.
No, I'd prefer a politically, at least in theory, neutral figure. Even better, one who is not involved in politics at all. Such persons don't grow on trees. That's where royals come in handy.

 

[Sternchen]

...IMO, there is no reason to have two heads of state in one country. One hundred years ago, RF's were not used as marketing ploy - but today they are? How's that for 'heritage?'

The Prime Minister is not the head of state. So there is no two heads of state situation.

 

[NotHRH]

The Prime Minister is not the head of state. So there is no two heads of state situation.

Again, simple technicalities of word usage. I know I have stated a valid argument against 'firing' a RF. When a respondent chooses to ignore many of my words stated in a post, they usually have no rebuttal.
A PM of the UK is a head of state governmentally. If this is not the case, why is it the PM who meets the US President on various international 'military' actions, and not the queen?

The impression given to a monarch's public is one of political neutrality. In all actuality, the monarch's political views do exist and to believe otherwise is naivety. Unless one simply lives in shell, or just does not really care, they do have a political viewpoint. So is why a monarch's viewpoint said officially, to be 'neutral?' Simply, why is a RF afraid to delve into politics? Is a RF scared their subjects will attempt an overthrow if their citizens take an alternate viewpoint? What is there for a RF to fear (if their lives are not in danger)?

 

[CSENYC]

The costs of running the office of president / Head of State and re-electing one every 4-5 years will exceed covering the costs of the Queen.

True. In 2008, Americans spent almost a billion dollars to elect the president. Complete waste of money that could be put to better uses- I give to political candidates and spent a few hundred for one Presidential candidate and spent a few days volunteering for the campaign, and I would otherwise have given that money to charity and spent the time working for my regular job.

 

[Sternchen]

When a respondent chooses to ignore many of my words stated in a post, they usually have no rebuttal.

As you have ignored a lot of the arguments that have been presented in this thread, this is certainly true for you

And as your main argument in this particular post is already flawed, as there is no president in a kingdom, so there are no two highest representatives at the same time, I see no use in taking care of the rest of your arguments, either.

 

[NotHRH]

Again, you have changed the subject. I do not think I spoke of a President in a monarchy, only asking why did ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair meet with President G.W. Bush a few years back. Why did the PM discuss war efforts with US President - why did not HM instead meet with Bush?

I have not ignored opposing opinions to my opinion. I just simply do not agree with the opposing opinions. I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, but again I do not agree.

 

[David V]

You argue that it would be "beneficial" to get rid of the monarchy by "economising", yet many countries have such a system as you propose that do no benefit to their people at all. Are you so oblivious to the facts of past and present? Do I have to list such countries here?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Again, you have changed the subject. I do not think I spoke of a President in a monarchy, only asking why did ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair meet with President G.W. Bush a few years back. Why did the PM discuss war efforts with US President - why did not HM instead meet with Bush?

I have not ignored opposing opinions to my opinion. I just simply do not agree with the opposing opinions. I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, but again I do not agree.

Because the idea of going to war was political and thus had to be discussed by politicians. At the time the other side of politics (now in office) weren't supportive of the war so to have an apolitical Head of State discuss the nitty gritty of the war would be unconstitutional.

You started saying that it would save taxpayers money to abolish monarchies and you have been asked to give evidence to support that point of view - and have failed to do so - so you have now changed the topic.

In the US the Head of State is also the Head of Government - immediately making the Head of State not representative of a large portion of the population. In Britain the monarch isn't the Head of Government and thus can discuss the views of all Britons with the PM without upsetting parties.

 

[NotHRH]

You argue that it would be "beneficial" to get rid of the monarchy by "economising", yet many countries have such a system as you propose that do no benefit to their people at all. Are you so oblivious to the facts of past and present? Do I have to list such countries here?

DavidV,
I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, and for that matter, any other topic. I however, do not agree with your opinion.
I have explained my opinion within this particular thread on this particular subject. My explanations have fallen on deaf ears. I have been repeating many of my words over and over. The fact some posters have ignored my key points and keep changing the subject, has me only asking why.
I did present my opinion at beginning, not to change anyone's else opinion, but to only give food for thought - to encourage conversation. It is only my point on this topic. Again, I respect all opinions, although I may not agree with them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You argue that people ignored your explanations but that accusation can be levelled at you very easily.

You argued that abolishing monarchies would save taxpayers money but haven't been able to provide any evidence - because there isn't any of course.

You argue that being non-political isn't good ignoring the fact that having a non-political Head of State gives the country a unifying Head of State.

Your arguments have been repeated because you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments raised against you - you repeat and repeat but when asked for evidence or challenged you simply repeat again - totally ignoring the issues put to you.

 

[FanofMonaco]

Democracies are finding out they have many of the same problems as monarchies have: corruption, incompetence, greed, being power crazy. The form of government doesn't matter as much as how the leaders do their jobs.

 

[David V]

DavidV,
I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, and for that matter, any other topic. I however, do not agree with your opinion.
I have explained my opinion within this particular thread on this particular subject. My explanations have fallen on deaf ears. I have been repeating many of my words over and over. The fact some posters have ignored my key points and keep changing the subject, has me only asking why.
I did present my opinion at beginning, not to change anyone's else opinion, but to only give food for thought - to encourage conversation. It is only my point on this topic. Again, I respect all opinions, although I may not agree with them.

You're the one quite keen on pushing a point of view without being able to discuss or refute countering arguments.

 

[NotHRH]

Because the idea of going to war was political and thus had to be discussed by politicians...

The monarch is not the head of the UK national government, which is a point I have expressed a few times.
Whether anyone agrees or not, politics rules the entire world. The international world exists because of politics. Obviously, there is no perfect government or perfect form of government - pros and cons exists for both. 'Upsetting?' This word has no place in politics. Those in politics have chosen to be in the position they are now.
If a monarch has no place in politics, as you have stated and I have agreed to, you have given my reason for abolishing a royal monarch and family. Ceremonial heads of state are really not necessary anymore. As these cHoS do not fit anywhere in this world of international politics, they are IMO, not very economical.
Yes, the recent wedding of TRH the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge did increase revenue to UK - but it simply filled in
all of the nonexistent funds for things such as extra security on the streets of London. Only my opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So now you are saying that Heads of State should be part of the political process. That would mean not just abolishing some monarchies (not the autocratic ones in the Mid-East of course as they are the political power within their countries) but also many presidents - who are ceremonial Heads of State only as well.

Why do you think that a number of countries have chosen to have a non-political Head of State? e.g. The Republic of Ireland's president has even less of a role in the political process of the UK but you aren't advocting abolishing that position or are you? The President of German likewise is ceremonial and not political but again are you advocating abolishing that position as well?

Why do you think that a major reason why Australia voted against a republic in 1999 was the fact that the recommended model was for the politicians to appoint the President? The polls indicated that the public wanted to elect a non-politician to that role.

That says to me that the people want the Head of State to be someone who can unite the population and not divide the nation - a political Head of State is necessarily a divisive position.

In Britain, regardless of whether or not you are Labour or Conservative you can cheer the monarch and know that the monarch will represent you.

 

[NotHRH]

You and a few other posters, have simply twisted and contorted my words in my posts in the this thread to 'tell' me what I am really saying! I have many valid points, and these points were simply lost in translation - IOW, they were ignored on purpose.
I am using my common sense to bow out of this topic gracefully - quite frankly, I have many things to do. Yes, you will say you are right - believe whatever you want, it really does not matter to me. :-D

 

[Madame Royale]

I agree with pretty much everything Iluvbertie has said (which surprises me somewhat ) throughout this discussion, and those who have provided a thorough and logical argument that actually makes sense and isn't layden with counterproductive prejudices.

It's been an interesting read, thanks

 

[Iluvbertie]

You and a few other posters, have simply twisted and contorted my words in my posts in the this thread to 'tell' me what I am really saying! I have many valid points, and these points were simply lost in translation - IOW, they were ignored on purpose.
I am using my common sense to bow out of this topic gracefully - quite frankly, I have many things to do. Yes, you will say you are right - believe whatever you want, it really does not matter to me. :-D

I haven't twisted anything - I have re-iterated your own comments and countered them.

You whole basis was that monarchies should be abolished because

1. they cost taxpayers too much money -
2. they aren't involved in the political process -


These are the only two arguments you have made.

Your first post on this topic

We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.

goes with my #1 above

Your second post on this topic

As the crown does not want to be affiliated with political party, it would be more advantageous for GB to simply have a PM, if the PM gets less pay than the monarch.

goes with #2

Your third post

Any monarchy is simply a waste of taxpayers' money!!! I do respect others' opinions about retaining their royal family - I just do not agree.

is back to point #1.

Your fourth post

Seems like most countries are on an economic low and need a way to cut programs/services to the general public. Why not abolish the monarchy? Simply put, if the major reason to keep a monarchy is to increase travel and tourism into the country - again the main reason - then the purpose to retain a monarchy is for naught. Royals are independently wealthy anyway. Heaven forbid they should attain the status of 'commoner' - they could not live in the real world anyway. I will end my post at this point. So many other points to address, but I will not ignore TRF's rules and regulations.

is again on point #1 - abolish monarchies because of their cost.

Your fifth post

I will assert my opinion again as we apparently do not understand each other's point of view on this particular topic.

tells us that what you have been saying we don't understand but doesn't tell us in what way we don't understand.

Your sixth post is again back to abolish the monarchy to save money but now also relates to the lack of a political role - so both #1 and #2 from my list of what your arguments have been

If a monarchy exists simply to encourage travel and tourism to that country, the monarchy is for naught. There other cost-effective measures to ensue to help provide services/programs to a country's citizens. The increased funds to socialized programs, education, medical care and the like would only help the public in general.
In most monarchies, there exists a law-making, legislative branch of government already. The Prime Minister or person in a like position, can become more in control of the government and can gradually take over the monarch's roles in government. No 'side' is cut and clean; all forms of government have differing pros and cons, and the pros and cons also differ from country to country.

Your #7 post is again on about the same two points I listed - save money by abolishing the monarchy and having a politcian do the job

Everyone thinks differently, and I have chosen to reason that monarch or sovereign is simply redundant with regard to a national government. Why have a monarch and Prime Minister or the equivalent? To economize, why not eliminate a monarchy and leave government business to the national government. Simply excising the monarch and his/her spouse's 'salary,' no matter the word used, is very economical.

Your post #8 in this thread is again about the political side of the monarch's role - or rather lack thereof - my #2 point

A PM of the UK is a head of state governmentally. If this is not the case, why is it the PM who meets the US President on various international 'military' actions, and not the queen? The impression given to a monarch's public is one of political neutrality. In all actuality, the monarch's political views do exist and to believe otherwise is naivety. Unless one simply lives in shell, or just does not really care, they do have a political viewpoint. So is why a monarch's viewpoint said officially, to be 'neutral?' Simply, why is a RF afraid to delve into politics? Is a RF scared their subjects will attempt an overthrow if their citizens take an alternate viewpoint? What is there for a RF to fear (if their lives are not in danger)?

Your next post refers again back to my point #2 - having a politician as Head of State - or not in this case

Again, you have changed the subject. I do not think I spoke of a President in a monarchy, only asking why did ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair meet with President G.W. Bush a few years back. Why did the PM discuss war efforts with US President - why did not HM instead meet with Bush?

In your second last post - your accuse us of ignoring your arguments but your have raised only two - as I have shown repeatedly here and they have been repeatedly countered but you have just said the same thing over and over again - no discusssion - just an 'I am right' attitude with no argument and when asked to supply evidence accuse us of ignoring or twisting your posts.

I have explained my opinion within this particular thread on this particular subject. My explanations have fallen on deaf ears. I have been repeating many of my words over and over. The fact some posters have ignored my key points and keep changing the subject, has me only asking why.I did present my opinion at beginning, not to change anyone's else opinion, but to only give food for thought - to encourage conversation. It is only my point on this topic. Again, I respect all opinions, although I may not agree with them.

You have made claims but when asked to support that claim with evidence simply re-stated the same thing or changed the topic.

If you have any valid arguments to make to support your ideas that countries would save money not having a monarchy or would be better off with a political Head of State it would be good to hear them but if not the I too think I will bow out of this thread as it is boring having to read the same thing over and over again.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

The monarch is representative symbol of the subjective right of the nation (Hegel). Paine ignores the role of the monarch as tribal fellow/ colleague.

How succinct and marvelous a statement that was, Rob.

As an anthropologist who studies various forms of social structure over the long term, I think bringing in Hegel - and your paraphrase of Hegel is appropriate.

Great Britain, it seems to me, has a fine system - a parliamentary, representative system and a functioning but non-absolute (relatively weak) monarchy, which stands for kinship, tribal leadership, etc. It's a great blend. It's not perfect by any means, any form of government has problems.

Now, I don't agree that Salic law, male primogeniture, excluding illegitimate children from succession, etc., is all fair and good, not by a long shot. Nor does history show that everyone thinks those things are important; a nation needs the monarch to have a certain amount of power and charisma. Much of the charisma is created by pomp, training and protocol, it's true, but it's still essential to human leadership to have those things.

 

[COUNTESS]

Thomas Paine was a very erudite man, who saw things way before their times. It was he and others in the "colonies" that had the vision of freedom and an unnecessary monarchy.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I remember reading Thomas Paine in college, but i don't recall what the heck it was about. As an American I am against monarchy in certain instances. I think the British monarchy is a waste of money and archaic (even though I did watch the wedding); but there are other monarchies that are tyrannical and should be done a way with. But it is up to that country and its citizens to do the work.

 

[genegirl99]

Read Paine in college. I responded in my paper that monarchy was a sin when the Jewish people wanted a king (You know the meaning of Kish, Saul's fathers name. Kish means bait.) because God wanted to be their King. I concluded that a monarchy went against God's design.

Pst Harvey Kaye was my professor. And you think that would have entitled his students to a discount on his book!

 

[lucien]

I remember reading Thomas Paine in college, but i don't recall what the heck it was about. As an American I am against monarchy in certain instances. I think the British monarchy is a waste of money and archaic (even though I did watch the wedding); but there are other monarchies that are tyrannical and should be done a way with. But it is up to that country and its citizens to do the work.

Really,it would be better you know something instead of this nonsense post,dear..There are republics I don't give a flying whatever for...starting with?...Yeah...