Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?

[queenofthelight]

Frankly, I really don't want that any monarchy will ever been abolished.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Caphia

As a Spaniard, I will like to see Infanta Elena ascending to the throne she's the rightful heir, or if Letizia has a male child he should be king instead of Leonor, that's the right thing to do.
IMO.

Why?
I understand that Elena is the eldest child.
But why should a son of Letizia and Felipe be placed above Leonor?

[magnik]

Originally Posted by queenofthelight

Frankly, I really don't want that any monarchy will ever been abolished.

Right.
And we wouldn't have any topic to talk about (almost none).
But if must guess than probably Belgium and Monaco.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by lumutqueen

Why?
I understand that Elena is the eldest child.
But why should a son of Letizia and Felipe be placed above Leonor?

Spanish monarchy, eg like the British monarchy, has a preference for a male heir. That's why Felipe is CP and not Elena. With the constitution unchanged in this regard Leonor will lose her right to the throne as soon as Letizia gives birth to a son.

[Caphia]

yeah that
btw, I edited my post becuase I got too politcal, don't want to cause trouble

[BELTRANEJA]

I think the republics aren´t most democratic
So:
The basic principle of a Republic is all public office or person representing the country should be elected by the people in elections ,but in practice it is not met.
An example:
Why do the spouses of the Republic President accompanies their husband to public events or official visits? or Why do they make official visits?Why should the public purse pay to the wives or husbands of the presidents of the republic?, They have not been elected by the people.

I think that in Spain will not be the monarchy abolished after Don Juan Carlos, the monarchy has an important role in Spain ...

[donnaK]

If the succession law is to be changed during Juan Carlos' reign, Spain will certainly follow Norway's example (Haakon is still the CP after the new law in Norway) to make the new succession law non-retroactive, only apply to Leonor's generation.

[Dierna23]

Originally Posted by BELTRANEJA

I think the republics aren´t most democratic
So:
The basic principle of a Republic is all public office or person representing the country should be elected by the people in elections ,but in practice it is not met.
An example:
Why do the spouses of the Republic President accompanies their husband to public events or official visits? or Why do they make official visits?Why should the public purse pay to the wives or husbands of the presidents of the republic?, They have not been elected by the people.

I think that in Spain will not be the monarchy abolished after Don Juan Carlos, the monarchy has an important role in Spain ...

I agree with that. After all I pay here in Germany for all ex-presidents and ex-chancellors the retirement trough my taxes and for ministers and and and Official residence of our president is Bellevue castle, so for me it makes no big difference. Furthermore in a republic it can happen that the person you're also never voted for becomes president because of the majority in parliament or whatever.

[BELTRANEJA]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Spanish monarchy, eg like the British monarchy, has a preference for a male heir. That's why Felipe is CP and not Elena. With the constitution unchanged in this regard Leonor will lose her right to the throne as soon as Letizia gives birth to a son.

This is true only if the Constitution is amended before is born male, Leonor inherits the throne, but if the child is born without the Constitution has been amended, the heir will be the child.

[Marsel]

Not necessarily. They may go the Swedish way when the changes in the succession laws took immediate effect and Carl Philip lost his place as "Crown Prince" to his older sister Victoria.

I'd assume that if/when Letizia gets pregnant again and they find out it’s a boy this time, the change in constitution will be made before the birth (as it seems that pretty much all political parties agree that is the best outcome), or, if the changes are late, they would adopt the Swedish model.

[BELTRANEJA]

I do not know how is the succession law Swedish , but the law of succession in Spain is into of the Constitution and amended it is very complicated and complex ... This requires Spanish dissolve parliament, appoint a new parliament to discuss the reform, and subject it to a referendum to change ... It is difficult

[wedmonds]

I read somewhere online that the United Nations Human Rights Division (or whatever it is called), started writing to the British Government. Telling them that they would recommend that they invest in a written constitution, preferably a republican one. If you search online (Google), you will probably find this article. It shocked me. The British Government will one day have to turn republic. I feel sorry for the monarchy when Charles ascends the throne. His approval rating is nothing like his mothers!

[RoyalistRiley]

I cannot see the UK becoming a republic anytime soon - at least until some of the Commonwealth realms start to become republics. The UN can't tell the British how to run their country.

[wedmonds]

The UN is one of the most powerful organizations in the world. The UN holds a lot of power. It was created under a treaty. The UN may not be able to tell them how to run their country, but if you look at it in reality the UN influences a lot of other countries. And could make things harder for the British if they don't do what the UN wants them to do.

The UN is more powerful then the Commonwealth of Nations (that the Queen is head of). I agree with you on the fact that I think that it may not happen in QEII's lifetime. But maybe in future generations. And if the UK ditches the monarchy, I think that some of the other realms will terminate the monarchy automatically or some will gradually transition into republics.

[Zonk]

The UN is only as powerful as it members organizations allows it to be. As evidenced by many recent decisions i.e. sanctions and wars that the UN has been able and unable to implement/enforce. In fact because of these recent decisions (or lack of decisions) some have even questioned the effectiveness of the UN. Its similiar to the role of the judicial branch of the US government when the US was formed. You can make laws but how do you enforce them? You need the police power of the two other branches of government --- executive and legislative. Everyone needs to work together.

I am not sure what you mean by your post, its somewhat confusing and contradictory: i.e. the UN may be able to tell them how to run their country and they can make it harder for the British if they don't do what the UN wants them to do. What do you mean by these statements? The UK is permanent member of the Security Council. Is the UN going to try to enforce sanctions or trade embargos because the United Kingdom decides to remain a constitutional monarchy? Will they do the same in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway? What makes the UK different from these countries? They can't even force sanctions on countries that consistently violate human rights. The UN has a list of concerns and problems that they need to deal with....and I am going to guess that Britian being a consitutional monarchy is not one of them.

Furthermore, what kind of human rights are being violated by a constitutional monarchy? Each person in the the Commonwealth has the opportunity to select and vote for an elected official who works on their behalf. So how is this a violation of human rights?

The UN will never tell a country what form of government it should take (i.e. democracy, consitutional monarcy, socialist or totaliarian). The UN has never told absolute dictators that they need to vacate so the likelihood of the UN telling the British that need to get rid of their 1000 plus year old monarchy and make way for a republic is never going to happen.

In this day and age, I would agree that most nations of the the British Commonwealth will most likely flirt with the idea of becoming a republic if and when Queen Elizabeth II dies. And yes, when that time comes I am sure a percentage of the British public will be so inclined to get rid of the monarchy as well but I think that will not happen as well.

I, of course, can not speak for the entire British population but I would hazard to guess that the British will not get rid of the monarchy during Charles (and perhaps Williams) lifetime. A large enough percentage of the British value the role of the monarch, and what it symbolizes and its traditions. So it might not happen in some of our lifetimes as well.Charles might not be as popular as his mother but can you name one British politican that has ever been? Certainly not the current ones. If you go back, you might pick Sir Winston Churchill, but he since he lost the election right after WWII I am going to put him in the same category as the current British politicans.

[Furienna]

I agree with RoyalistRiley and Zonks. The UN can't tell the UK to get rid of their monarchy, especially not as it's constitutional, so the real power lies with the politicians, that the people have voted for in democratic elections. And like Zonks said, there are other monarchies in Europe, like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain and Monaco. And there's also Japan, which is probably the most modern country in Asia, but also the only country in the world, that still has an imperial family. No one will force these countries to become republics either.

[Manee]

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

I hope that it isn't a European Monarchy to go next, some african and asian monarchies really do need reformed if they want to survive in the 21st Century

List some of the Asian Monarchies that you think needed reforming? You sounds really racist.

[SpeedDial]

Whatever country abolishes their monarchy next, it won't be a European one. I think that the current European monarchies are here to stay for good. You have to remember that a lot of tourists are fascinated by palaces and royal families. Monarchies are good "tourist attractions" and tourism in a country is important for the economy.

[Sonjapearl]

It looks like the Swedish monarchy may be in trouble:

While support for the abolition of the monarchy has more than doubled over the past ten years, 58 percent of Swedes want to see the institution retained, according to the survey commissioned by the Swedish Republican Association

Swedish monarchy losing support: poll - The Local

[NoorMeansLight]

IMO Spain and Sweden, because their monarchies are both losing support. Not in the near future though.