Which Country Could Become A Monarchy?

[Ruhije]

Im torn between really agreeing with those others posts who think any or most Monarchies chance of restoration is so unlikely in the modern and global-political world we have become - almost ideologically!
I certainly cant think of any seriously obvious Royal dynasty candidates likely for near future Monarchy restoration. Except possibly Montenegro.
However im also thinking on the other hand, those few Monarchies that have been restored in recent decades - The Ugandan Dynasties (although they are in tribal and federal situations), Cambodia, are the best examples, as well as Spain of course. Am i missing any other obvious restorations?
Another reason why i really think Monarchies official restoration very unlikely in most cases is that so many former exiled Royal dynasties have returned to their countries over the past few decades to varying levels of restitution and compromise positions of State roles and semi-diplomatic positions, some property restitution, etc - Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, some former Sultanates & Sheikhdoms of South Yemen (Aden & South Arabia).
I think these various cases of returned and restituted Royals have a sort of half-way or compromised acceptance (and maybe pensions or salaries)!
Recent events in Cyrenaica in eastern Libya make The al-Senussi Dynasty one to watch.
The political situations and recent histories in Vietnam or Eithiopia make me think these most unlikely examples for near future restoration of Monarchy.
So for me its maybe Montenegro, and ever so possibly Cyrenaica (but maybe in a Federal Emirate within Libya).
Any agreement or disagreement with all this?

[COUNTESS]

If a country has to return to a monarchy, they have failed in the modern world to create a workable government.

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

If a country has to return to a monarchy, they have failed in the modern world to create a workable government.

Well im a Constitutional Monarchist!

[COUNTESS]

That's nice, if it is in place, but a great waste of money if it is not.

[Artemisia]

From what I understnad, there is a large support for the former Royal Houses of Serbia (Yugoslavia), Romania and Montenegro. However, as far as actual restoration goes, I'm not so certain.
While people of those countries seem to be in favour of Monarchy, and no major political and/or religious groups oppose it either, there is also no momentum for the restoration. No one is ready to take the first and most decisive step - openly and officially declaring support for restoration. As such, unless some drastic events take place, a restoration is rather unlikely.

[mary stuart]

or as a wild card they ask an ordinary man and his family to become a new monarch and royal family and start a new dynasty eg i coiuld suddly hacve a gov ask me joe public come and be our monach etc not it will happen thou but you never know but a constuonal monachy is good as long you have ground rules . now i just need to find some land and stake claim (thats touge in cheek by the way)

[James VI]

Restoration is a head and heart issue. Personally, my heart is with Kings Michael and Constantine, i would dearly love to see both restored to their respective thrones, the unfairness of their present situations finally righted. However, my head tells me something different, that the obstacles in their way may simply be insurmountable....only time will tell. On a different note, i take great issue with the assertion that a country has " failed " if it abandons it`s republic, for a former Monarchy. Whereas it is true that virtually every failed state in the world is a republic, hardly any of them were former Monarchies, and indeed, a good number would be only too glad to have a former constitutional Monarch to turn to!!!

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

From what I understnad, there is a large support for the former Royal Houses of Serbia (Yugoslavia), Romania and Montenegro. However, as far as actual restoration goes, I'm not so certain.
While people of those countries seem to be in favour of Monarchy, and no major political and/or religious groups oppose it either, there is also no momentum for the restoration. No one is ready to take the first and most decisive step - openly and officially declaring support for restoration. As such, unless some drastic events take place, a restoration is rather unlikely.

Totally agree, without pro-active momentum and even charasmatic leadership no Republican Government will take the initiative in restoring any Monarchy.
The situation with Montenegro and the Royal family is different to the other Balkan States mainly because the idea and history of the Monarchy is very tied-in with the independence of Montenegro, its history and their separate identity from the Serbs and the 'Greater' Serbian (Yugoslavia) past.
The Montenegro people and government are very pro-Monarchy, and the government have led the way in the recent restitution and the Crown Prince and Royal families future looks very stable and positive.
Albania has also been fairly positive in its treatment and restitution to the Royal Zogu family, particularly by the Salih Berisha Government.
Then probably Romania's and Serbia's situation is fairly similar to each others partial restitution of their Royal families, in regards to returned palace homes (if not actual ownership) and certain honoury roles and positions.
Although their Governments attitudes are far less warm towards the Royal families than in Montenegro and Albania.
So for me, its still Montenegro that leads the way in any chance of Monarchy restoration.
Then of course im still interested to see how the very fluid changing situation developes in Libya, with an eye on Libya's Royal al-Senussi family and the autonomy in Cyrenaica, with the al-Senussi Dynasty involvement in the new local leadership.

Ps - Also totally agree with 'James VI' post and comments re defence of Constitutional Monarchy.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

That's nice, if it is in place, but a great waste of money if it is not.

What makes you think a republic is cheaper? Presidents receive salaries and life pensions. Security needs to be in place for Presidents and their families, even after they leave office, There is the cost of elections every 4 or 5 years. Official residences need to me maintained. Staff has to be paid for. Official travel needs to be paid for. We know for instance that the costs of the presidencies of Germany and Italy both exceed those of the British monarchy. I dont see how a monarchy would be more expensive, in fact it may even be cheaper since there would be no elections and no pensions for a monarch.

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

What makes you think a republic is cheaper? Presidents receive salaries and life pensions. Security needs to be in place for Presidents and their families, even after they leave office, There is the cost of elections every 4 or 5 years. Official residences need to me maintained. Staff has to be paid for. Official travel needs to be paid for. We know for instance that the costs of the presidencies of Germany and Italy both exceed those of the British monarchy. I dont see how a monarchy would be more expensive, in fact it may even be cheaper since there would be no elections and no pensions for a monarch.

Absolutely agree, and Monarchy represents and promotes the cultures, heritage, and histories, as well as tourism often, as part of society and individual national identity and cohesive continuity.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

What makes you think a republic is cheaper? Presidents receive salaries and life pensions. Security needs to be in place for Presidents and their families, even after they leave office, There is the cost of elections every 4 or 5 years. Official residences need to me maintained. Staff has to be paid for. Official travel needs to be paid for. We know for instance that the costs of the presidencies of Germany and Italy both exceed those of the British monarchy. I dont see how a monarchy would be more expensive, in fact it may even be cheaper since there would be no elections and no pensions for a monarch.

Oh, presidencies are not cheap. But they are people, who have worked hard to reach a goal. They weren't born to the "manor" so to speak. First of all, the British Monarachy costs a fortune, always played downed and dwindled into some bizzare figures, that belie the living arrangements of the family. Remember, they, believe, that all the land, jewels and other accoutremounts, are theirs, because they were born into it. Do you think the queen pays for travel for business. Do you think she packs a bag or gets on a commercial plane or does anything remotely necessary to cuts costs. And then she goes and skes hands. Her Prime Minister is reponsible for government. It is live theatre. Each of these nations, Italy, Germany, etc. have Prime Minsters and, actual, pepople, who, really, run the government, that work, put the behinds on the line for good or bad. There are great costs to that, besides other costs that keep a monarch in the style to which they are accustomed. They travel and live, too and are paid, too. So do the British have Prime Ministers, who get paid and travel. So, besides keeping a monarchy, they pay for a "real" government. Double. No one counts that.

[American Dane]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Oh, presidencies are not cheap. But they are people, who have worked hard to reach a goal. They weren't born to the "manor" so to speak. First of all, the British Monarachy costs a fortune, always played downed and dwindled into some bizzare figures, that belie the living arrangements of the family. Remember, they, believe, that all the land, jewels and other accoutremounts, are theirs, because they were born into it. Do you think the queen pays for travel for business. Do you think she packs a bag or gets on a commercial plane or does anything remotely necessary to cuts costs. And then she goes and skes hands. Her Prime Minister is reponsible for government. It is live theatre. Each of these nations, Italy, Germany, etc. have Prime Minsters and, actual, pepople, who, really, run the government, that work, put the behinds on the line for good or bad. There are great costs to that, besides other costs that keep a monarch in the style to which they are accustomed. They travel and live, too and are paid, too. So do the British have Prime Ministers, who get paid and travel. So, besides keeping a monarchy, they pay for a "real" government. Double. No one counts that.

Yes, but as NGalitzine stated before "We know for instance that the costs of the presidencies of Germany and Italy both exceed those of the British monarchy." Italy and Germany both have 'double acts' so to speak as well, but in republican form.

I don't have straight numbers for you at the moment but the US presidency (a 'single act') -- which covers pension, travel, security for life (not for Bush 43 and successors), etc. for former presidents and their spouses and the same plus more for the current president and his family -- is at least equal to the British monarchy. A bit expensive for just one, no?

[cepe]

The BRF expenses are heavily scrutinised and the annual cost per head of population is 62p. These are audited figures, and cover the costs of running the offices and travel for the Queen and 9 member of the RF. Value for money. The Queen has not received at increase in the money available for over 5 years.


These figures do not include the cost of the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and his sons and daughter in law. These costs are met via income from the Duchy of Cornwall which is private income. He pays tax on that income.

TRF pay for all the upkeep on their private residences but not Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

There is no royal train, no royal yacht, no fleet of aeroplanes - all gone.

It's not the Queen who hasn't moved with the times!

[James VI]

Sorry Countess, but if you seriously imagine that the Queen believes she has a right to an extravagant and pampered lifestyle, then you clearly know nothing of the personality and moral beliefs of our Queen.

[COUNTESS]

It is not the queen, per se, who likes to lead an extravagant lifestyle. She is, truly, a modest woman. But she does just the same. She did cry, one of the few times, in public, when the Britannia was removed. And, do think about the many years they paid taxes on nothing. Their fortunes have been amassed while the little guy forked over his fair share. The Duchy of Cornwall is Charles', because it was given to him. He didn't purchase it with earned income. And only recently did they start picking up the tab on private residences, of which they have a few. Trust me, they give tourist value, but you still pay a "real" working government, Prime Minister, his home, and others. the pensions our presidents get are not that high, as their salaries are not that high and many donate those salaries and do not keep them. Plus they work, they do not cut ribbons and taste cake at Fortnum and Mason for the days out. The buck stops at their desks, they go in looking young and come out looking tired.

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by James VI

Sorry Countess, but if you seriously imagine that the Queen believes she has a right to an extravagant and pampered lifestyle, then you clearly know nothing of the personality and moral beliefs of our Queen.

Yes absolutely, re HM Queen Elizabeth's modesty, and her long service of hard work and endless schedule, commitment and duty to the nation!
How certain posts and Republicans constantly argue and bang on about the costs of Monarchy is a dead argument!
This round-in-circles repetitive point about Monarchies costing the State two leadership salaries and expenses is not valid, and for most Monarchists its not the point anyway.
Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Chancellors, and Prime Ministers cost several high leadership salaries and expenses too!!

[James VI]

The issue of costs will always figure in any debate on restoration. Those opposed to such moves in Romania, for instance, will always seek to make the case that restoring King Michael to the throne, would be a greater burden on the national purse, than maintaining the present white-collar president, or any of his predecessors. A ludicrous argument, when one thinks of the extravagance of the communist " King " Ceaucescu and his appalling wife. Unfortunately, it is an argument that still has some sway in Romania, and it is rather disappointing to hear similar carping, on forums such as these. Ultimately, the restoration of a monarchy should be determined by principles, ethics and righteousness. It should not be determined by Pounds, Shillings and Pence.

[Ruhije]

Exactly my earlier point too, Monarchy and Restoration is not just simply an issue or argument of cost re Monarchy-v-Republic.
Although that argument has been made very well already by the often huge costs of Presidents, Premiers, and Prime Ministers costs and expenses! Also dual costs!
Monarchists reasoning and arguments for restoration are about far more than nit-picking about budgets and finance.

[Ruhije]

This excellent BBC News Magazine article on recently abolished Royals, and more about recently returned and restored or restituted Royals and Monarchies was sent to me today.
It is very topical and relevant to our recent posts and this thread in general.

WHAT DO MONARCHS DO NEXT?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7426349.stm

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by Ruhije

This excellent BBC News Magazine article on recently abolished Royals, and more about recently returned and restored or restituted Royals and Monarchies was sent to me today.
It is very topical and relevant to our recent posts and this thread in general.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2hi/uk_news/magazine/7426349.stm

Apologies! - Link correction -

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | What do monarchs do next?