Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?

[Lady Felicity M]

I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now

[David V]

Originally Posted by jemagre

The media can be a dangerous thing regardless of who is in power. A monarchy doesn't make it safer. While I think that the Belgium monarchy is in danger the people might be willing to keep it because it does appear to be a source of unity in a divided country. When the government couldn't agree on which party would lead the country that left King Albert to take over. This move might endure them to the country, because without a monarchy there would have been nobody.

As for the European monarchies, social situations are changing and that effects them. Even popular monarchies like Sweden and England are coming under fire because they are viewed as old-fashioned. I especially think that England's monarchy will continue to go down in size as countries like Australia and Canada decide not to have the Queen as their leader. I think in 50 or 100 years there will probably be no more monarchies in the world.

Public opinion is incredible fickle, one small incident could turn into something big. I remember a few months ago there were riots that swept through England that concerned student tuition fees. Eventually the royal family came under attack due to their money and status. So I don't think anyone can say for certain how stable these types of governments are.

Europe's current monarchies are some of the best-functioning democracies anywhere. In fact, it has been shown that a republic is no more democratic or egalitarian, and the monarchy is effective in unifying and upholding the system and its values. Royals shine where politicians flounder and can unite where others divide. Without that, people have nobody to turn to and rally around- which makes much uglier options (or descent into apathy, which is just as dangerous) more viable.

You have to look at the period between the World Wars where the German and Austrian monarchies fell aside, the vacuum created was readily exploited by Hitler. If those monarchies had survived, there is good reason to suggest the rise of Hitler may have been averted. The only European republic that maintained democratic government to the end was Czechoslovakia- even France basically collapsed.

After all, look at Latin American countries, they weren't exactly models of democracy or equality and in fact corruption and inequalities still persists. In fact, almost EVERY Latin American country from Mexico to Argentina has had a history of grave human rights violations. Just look at Guatemala, which is only two doors down from the US. This has only changed, really, in the last quarter of a century.

Half of Europe still has the scars of totalitarian rule and are still coming to terms with it. Look at Serbia, Romania, Georgia, etc- countries where restoration of the monarchy even enters the political debate as a result. All that means is that criticisms of today's monarchies are, IMHO, badly misplaced. This does not say that any given system of government is foolproof, or that any is indeed wrong, but there are sound historical arguments either way.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lady Felicity M

I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now

What do you mean by 'part of the British realm'?

The only thing we have that ties us to Britain these days is the Queen and history but Britain and Australia are otherwise completely independent countries. It is perfectly possible for Britain and Australia to take opposite sides in a war for instance - something which couldn't have happened 100 years ago.

[jemagre]

Originally Posted by Lady Felicity M

I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now

I would be suprised if Australia, Canada or New Zealand remained a part of the commonwealth after the current Queen passes away. They "seem" so detached from the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by jemagre

I would be suprised if Australia, Canada or New Zealand remained a part of the commonwealth after the current Queen passes away. They "seem" so detached from the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters.

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.

[David V]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.

A Commonwealth realm becoming a republic makes no difference to the practice of government. Malta, Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius are such- the President is theoretically elected by Parliament but is, like a governor-general, always an appointee of the government. While the Queen nominally appoints the governor-general and Australian state governors, the government of the day has the last word in practice. The lieutenant-governors in Canada are slightly different: they are technically subordinate to the GG, and are essentially employees (and constitutionally, agents instructed to act on behalf) of the federal government, salary paid for by them, etc.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by David V

A Commonwealth realm becoming a republic makes no difference to the practice of government. Malta, Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius are such- the President is theoretically elected by Parliament but is, like a governor-general, always an appointee of the government. While the Queen nominally appoints the governor-general and Australian state governors, the government of the day has the last word in practice. The lieutenant-governors in Canada are slightly different: they are technically subordinate to the GG, and are essentially employees (and constitutionally, agents instructed to act on behalf) of the federal government, salary paid for by them, etc.

I have a question for you: How does any of this related to my question? Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

Jemarge said that she thought that Australia, Canada and New Zealand would leave the Commonwealth when the Queen dies and I simply asked her why she that that would happen.



The vast majority of countries of the Commonwealth (as I am sure you know as an Australian) are in fact republics already.

[David V]

I think I was more on the line that debate over the monarchy in Commonwealth Realms such as Australia is rather different to what it is elsewhere, since we (in Australia and other such realms) do not have "our own" monarchy.

[jemagre]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.

Sorry I meant monarchy not Commonwealth. I am certain they would stay with that. My original idea was that these countries would cease to be monarchies because they do not seem to have strong ties with England in regards to the matter, and has you have pointed out already, seem to function as republics. Sorry for the confusion.

[Keystone]

Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.


As for the Commonwealth Realms... Had I been Queen of England I would have sent my children to serve as Governor-Generals to commonwealth realms to possibly succeed as heads-of-state there. Maybe the Princess-Royal serving as Governor-General of Canada then as queen there, the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia then king there, and the Earl of Wessex as governor-general of New Zealand and then king there too. *shrug* as it is, It seems likely that after good queen Bess passes these realms may take a different path.

[David V]

Originally Posted by Keystone

Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.

The protests in Jordan are not actually aimed at the monarchy but calling instead for reforms of government.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Keystone

Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.


As for the Commonwealth Realms... Had I been Queen of England I would have sent my children to serve as Governor-Generals to commonwealth realms to possibly succeed as heads-of-state there. Maybe the Princess-Royal serving as Governor-General of Canada then as queen there, the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia then king there, and the Earl of Wessex as governor-general of New Zealand and then king there too. *shrug* as it is, It seems likely that after good queen Bess passes these realms may take a different path.

By the time QEII's children were of an age to take on those positions the relevant countries were no longer accepting foreigners as GG.

The time to do that was past by the time QEII became Queen really but had Victoria done it then these countries may very well be content monarchies with a history of their own monarchy.

The Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia in the 1940s and wasn't all that popular in that position - partly because of his attitude I believe. My mother worked for the British High Commission during the final year of his time as GG and told me that he wasn't popular with either the Australians or the British in Canberra at the time.

I wonder what would happen if say the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew abdicated their rights to be the monarch of Australia and thus Beatrice, at 22 became a young Queen of Australia - would she be accepted - probably not but could it satisfy some of the republicans to have 'our own' monarch whose children would be born and raised here etc.? A thought only.

[Keystone]

Egyptian president Mubarak resigns and grants extra-constitutional power to the army.


Yeman and Jordan next? Pundats yesterday were saying Mubarak would likely stay on until the elections. All bets are off, me thinks if the King of Jordon does not act asap his regime may be next indeed.

Sad truth is I generally like the King of Jordan, as he is a western leaning ruler. But if he has not been ruling in a western fashion with an eye for a democratic legislative assembly, basic human rights, and an execultive answerable to the legislative assembly then perhaps he should also step down?

[Keystone]

With the transfer of power in Egypt under the auspices of the army, might there be a role for Mohamad Ali, Prince of the Sa'id and the deposed Egyptian royal family? Might they become the focus of a united Egypt in much the same way as the King of Spain has become for that country?

[Keystone]

Bahrain's government next? These middle eastern monarchies really need to embrace the liberal democratic ideas of the West if they wish to survive like Western monarchies have. The need to embrace peaceful transfer of power, multiparty systems, the rule of law, and the monarchies of these realms should transition much like the Spanish monarchy has.

Good luck to them I say.

[jemagre]

Originally Posted by Keystone

Bahrain's government next? These middle eastern monarchies really need to embrace the liberal democratic ideas of the West if they wish to survive like Western monarchies have. The need to embrace peaceful transfer of power, multiparty systems, the rule of law, and the monarchies of these realms should transition much like the Spanish monarchy has.

Good luck to them I say.

How do we know that western monarchies won't be next? They are more liberal than there middle-eastern counterparts but they still operate on the same premise. For all we know there could be mass protests against them tomorrow. These countries are fighting for democracy. Monarchies may be constitutional in the west but they still are not democracies.

[David V]

You cannot compare the Middle East and Europe because of how different societies and cultures are. And for what it's worth, reforms are more likely to be easily carried out in some of the monarchies, and Morocco is in fact quite democratic compared to most of the Arab world. Most Arab countries, despite many of them providing a decent standard of living, do not provide the sort of political rights and free expression, which is what this is all about now. And the most abusive regimes in the Arab world are not even monarchies (except, perhaps, Saudi Arabia). That's why the protests in Tunisia and Egypt go to where they are, because their presidents not only abused power but also found ways to do both that and enrich their close circles.

Most people know what works and won't want to change what works, after all look what happened between two World Wars. And European monarchies provide the sort of unifying force and safety valve to democracies that many other countries do not have, for the worse. Nobody's political rights and civil liberties in Europe are being suppressed like they have in much of the Middle East and Asia.

[Princess Martine]

This is an interesting discussion!

I voted for Sweden.

I really don't hope they (or any other European monarchy) become a republic though!

[sjetajiem]

I will not vote, but I am convinced that monarchy will not exist anymore in say about 50 years.
I live in what is said to be a stable monarchy, the Netherlands but a lot of young people (the future) could not care less about the royal family.
The most traditional celebration of the dutch monarchy Koninginnedag is celebrated by most of the people because it is a day off and you can sell your old stuff on the free-market.
The second day, Prinsjesdag (Opening of the Parliament) is only celebrated by a handfull of royal diehards.
The majority of the people is mostly interested in the new plans of the government and the cuts of the budget, and I can even understand that!!




There is a lot of complain today about the costs of the monarchy
A lot of young people don't feel connected to the RF

[jemagre]

Originally Posted by David V

You cannot compare the Middle East and Europe because of how different societies and cultures are. And for what it's worth, reforms are more likely to be easily carried out in some of the monarchies, and Morocco is in fact quite democratic compared to most of the Arab world. Most Arab countries, despite many of them providing a decent standard of living, do not provide the sort of political rights and free expression, which is what this is all about now. And the most abusive regimes in the Arab world are not even monarchies (except, perhaps, Saudi Arabia). That's why the protests in Tunisia and Egypt go to where they are, because their presidents not only abused power but also found ways to do both that and enrich their close circles.

Most people know what works and won't want to change what works, after all look what happened between two World Wars. And European monarchies provide the sort of unifying force and safety valve to democracies that many other countries do not have, for the worse. Nobody's political rights and civil liberties in Europe are being suppressed like they have in much of the Middle East and Asia.

I am not exactly comparing the societies. I am comparing the basic idea that the institution rest on. The idea that someone is more able to "lead" a country because they were born into the right family. That idea is the same whether you are talking about Europe or the Middle East. The argument against monarchies is the same the world over. That is what I was referring to. We have no real way of knowing when people will say that they have had enough of monarchies. Revolutions are not always easy to predict.

You also argue that monarchies are seen as a unifying force. How unifying is it for Catholics who can't marry into the family? How unifying is it for minorities? I submit the example of the "secret" trip that William and Kate just took. If the monarchy was a source of unification there would not be so much strife in Northern Ireland today.

By the way no government will provide absolute unity but I do not think that monarchies are necessarily the greatest example of unified government.