Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?

[Artemisia]

While I personally do respect and admire the Princes of Asturias, I wouldn't say they are all that popular in Spain. Their emergence as the only "clean" members of the Royal Family may have boosted the couple's popularity, but it's nowhere near the same regard King Juan Carlos enjoyed (and to a large extent still does, despite all the controversy and scandals).

I agree that the Spanish Monarchy is right now one of the most endangered ones.

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by Princess Peach

As the Inaki Urgandarin case unfolds, the Spanish RF is in a very precarious position, IMO. The only saving grace is the complete lack of evidence implicating Felipe's knowledge of the events, and the respect and popularity of Felipe and Letizia.

I think Spain is far more a Monarchy to watch for instability and problems than Sweden ever will be.
The whole situation of Spains future stability and economic concerns, as well as any Monarchy crisis or future trouble is yet to be secured or safe, but i don't think the current scandal of Duke Inaki Urgandarin is enough alone to cause a total Bourbon Monarchal crisis on its own.
This is not the legacy of King Juan Carlos, and would be devastating if it becomes the demise of the Spanish Monarchy, but i don't understand or know the implications and connection of this current scandal to Prince Felipe, either directly or even rumour?

[LadyGabrielle]

Yup, I agree. I think Spain would probably be in line to abolish the monarchy. With everything going on over there it wouldnt surprise me at all. I think the monarchy has lost the respect of its people and with the economy the way it is there really is no reason to have one. Lets see what happens.

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by LadyGabrielle

Yup, I agree. I think Spain would probably be in line to abolish the monarchy. With everything going on over there it wouldnt surprise me at all. I think the monarchy has lost the respect of its people and with the economy the way it is there really is no reason to have one. Lets see what happens.

And yet a newspaper I read today says that after his apology, King Juan Carlos has gained the respect of many of the spanish wjile the politicians are the ones that are losing their peoples respect. I don't know if the Spanish monarchy will survive after JC but economic troubles is not a reason to get rid of the monarchy.

[Ruhije]

Originally Posted by fearghas

And yet a newspaper I read today says that after his apology, King Juan Carlos has gained the respect of many of the spanish wjile the politicians are the ones that are losing their peoples respect. I don't know if the Spanish monarchy will survive after JC but economic troubles is not a reason to get rid of the monarchy.

I agree Fearghas, this was also my point, not that King Juan Carlos position at threat or in crisis as some other posts suggest (but don't support), just that Spain's Monarchy is an interesting one to watch in the longterm future as a more recent restored Monarchy and due to wider issues and the recent Duke Inaki scandal, etc.
King Juan Carlos's reign and part in the 70's democratic process and restoration of Spain's Monarchy, are the very reasons i see no crisis or immediate political and popular call for referendum or certainly not abolishment!
Only future decades can tell us the longterm future of Spain's Monarchy, but not this current EU related (not Monarchal!) economic crisis.

[royalistbert]

Originally Posted by LadyGabrielle

Yup, I agree. I think Spain would probably be in line to abolish the monarchy. With everything going on over there it wouldnt surprise me at all. I think the monarchy has lost the respect of its people and with the economy the way it is there really is no reason to have one. Lets see what happens.

Should we abolish the US presidency because the economy isn't doing great at the moment?

[Meraude]

For anyone interested in the strength and popularity of the Swedish Royal Family, here is opinion polls made by the University of Göteborg about the royal family and monarchy in Sweden: http://www.som.gu.se/digitalAssets/1...kungahuset.pdf

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by royalistbert

Should we abolish the US presidency because the economy isn't doing great at the moment?

No, but you can get rid of the President at next opportunity. Monarchies are stuck with the person in charge for possibly 60 years+

[EIIR]

Plus, 'isn't doing great' is an enormous understatement. The Spanish state is on the brink of total bankruptcy. I hope it doesn't happen, but with unemployment so high and likely more and more austerity coming down the track to satisfy Germany, I can easily see social unrest in Spain. That could be dangerous given that democracy is not as mature in Spain as in most other European countries. What would happen to the position of the monarchy at that stage is anyone's guess.

This may be overly pessimistic but it's certainly not impossible.

[RoyalistRiley]

I really think Spain has bigger fish to fry than what its form of government is. Abolishing the monarchy would do absolutely nothing, but I can see why such a move may be plausible.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

No, but you can get rid of the President at next opportunity. Monarchies are stuck with the person in charge for possibly 60 years+

Which more often then not is a Blessing for that country,thank you!Instead of fraudulous start-up plebs...

[Duke of Marmalade]

Not every monarch is a blessing, like eg QEII, Beatrix or Juan Carlos have been during their long reign. Long term I think monarchies in general will go because they are undemocratic, what doesnt fit into modern thinking. Another question is the qualification for a powerless position. If you have a stupid heir, you will want to get rid of him, if you have an intelligent one, he wants to do more than spend his life ribbon cutting.

[David V]

One remarkable thing for me is how people can be fascinated by royalty yet hostile towards the very idea of monarchy, even though monarchies have long proven better as a system of governance. Especially when we are in a polarised political environment, the role of the Crown is ever more important for the nations they serve.

If you think they are "undemocratic", what about the countless examples where monarchies overthrown were replaced by WORSE regimes? Like Communism and Nazism, for instance? Let's not forget that those two ideologies wrecked havoc on the 20th century, and we have still as humans not recovered or learned from it.

What about the fatal flaws of the political system in the US? It's not the best example of what democracy should be, is it?

What about the murderous regimes in Latin America like those of Argentina, Guatemala and El Salvador? All of those were republics. They killed thousands of their own people, even if it wasn't as many as Communism or Nazism, it was still bad.

Ignorance of modern history, I'm afraid, is too widespread.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The US system is not perfect but it's argued to be the closest to perfect a system on the planet; s system which was borrowed from the English. People are fascinated by a variety of things, war, violence, serial killers, yet that doesn't mean we want go get up close and personal with them.
Yes the US system is flawed just like the British system; anything created by people is going to have flaws.
The modern idea of government is choice, some choose monarchies others choose a President.

[RoyalistRiley]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

The US system is not perfect but it's argued to be the closest to perfect a system on the planet; s system which was borrowed from the English. People are fascinated by a variety of things, war, violence, serial killers, yet that doesn't mean we want go get up close and personal with them.
Yes the US system is flawed just like the British system; anything created by people is going to have flaws.
The modern idea of government is choice, some choose monarchies others choose a President.

I've never heard anyone say that the US system is the closest to perfect and would disagree profusely with such a statement, but that would be going to much off topic. I do agree though that at the end of the day its up to the people to choose between monarchy or republics.

[Balinsale]

I felt I really should respnd to the Duke of Marmalade's comment that a monarchy is undemocratic. I think this would be the case if the monarchy were absolute, but for the european monarchies, this is not the case and should be seen as another form of democracy. For example, Germany has a symbolic head of state as does Ireland, both are republics but the president of these countries perform much the same symbolic function as Queen Elizabeth, King Harald etc.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Balinsale

I felt I really should respnd to the Duke of Marmalade's comment that a monarchy is undemocratic. I think this would be the case if the monarchy were absolute, but for the european monarchies, this is not the case and should be seen as another form of democracy. For example, Germany has a symbolic head of state as does Ireland, both are republics but the president of these countries perform much the same symbolic function as Queen Elizabeth, King Harald etc.

In Germany, there have been ongoing discussions about the Head of State not being elected by the people. The last Bundespräsident, Christian Wulff, was chased out of his job because public opinion turned against him because of various scandals, despite him only being a symbolic figurehead and the public technically not having a say. Still it happened. Joachim Gauck, the current Bundespräsident, got the job because the majority of the people wanted him to represent Germany. Those who were in charge got the message and elected him.

To be precise: the tendency of people wanting to have a say in who will be their highest representative - symbolic or not - will be stronger and stronger in all countries. In that sense monarchies are undemocratic, the people of a country should and will have the right to be represented by a person of their choice. I am sure this will come and one of the main reasons why monarchies will go. Not in our lifetime, maybe not in this century, but I am sure it will come.

[EIIR]

Monarchy and democracy are perfectly comfortable bedfellows. The simple fact of the matter is, down the centuries those monarchs who have lost the popular support of the people have been turfed out. The monarchies which remain have managed to do so by adapting to ensure that they retain the support of the majority of their people. In short, QEII is only monarch because it is the desire of the majority of the British population that she should have that role. Is that any less democratic that David Cameron being PM despite his party only winning 42% of the vote in an election where turnout was only around 60%?

This, though, is where republicans come in and say that the royals hire PR companies to make themselves look good; or the press connive with the monarchy to give it positive media converage. All this shows is the republicans view the majority of British people as stupid, empty headed sheep. Brendan O'Neill summed it up perfectly in the Telegraph recently:

Once upon a time, being a republican meant trusting in the people, seeing in the mass of society the potential for reason and self-governance. Now it means precisely the opposite: distrusting the people, sneering at them for being an easily brainwashable mob of forelock-tugging freaks.

They railed against the “infantile emotions” of the public, who apparently squeal: “Oh look here is the Queen! In yellow! In a hat!” They told us that “never are the peasants more revolting than when tugging their forelocks”. They informed us that certain groups of people – rough translation: the thick and uncultured – have been swallowed up by an “orgy of deference” to the Queen. And these thickos don't even understand that the Queen-oriented “cult of personality” has been sinisterly designed as a “diversion from more serious issues”, like the recession. What the dainty-minded ordinary people fundamentally don’t get, apparently, is that royal events like this are, in the words of a Mirror columnist, “magnificent pleb-pleasing distractions”, “psycho-spectacles” designed to make the “plebs” forget about their hardships. And the reason these plebs can so easily be made to forget that they are poor and wretched and downtrodden is because they have been “brainwashed on an Orwellian scale” into loving royalty.

Republicans seem unwilling to face facts. We have a monarchy because we want to have a monarchy. Directly electing a head of state might be more sensible; but human beings are not rational; we don't always want those things that are 'good for us' according to the elitist snobs who think they know best; we just want what we want.

One point on the US system. I think it was a quote in the West Wing, that any nation setting up a democratic state from scratch shouldn't even consider the US system as a template, mainly because of the power of the President (who I think can declare war unilaterally).

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by EIIR

Monarchy and democracy are perfectly comfortable bedfellows. The simple fact of the matter is, down the centuries those monarchs who have lost the popular support of the people have been turfed out. The monarchies which remain have managed to do so by adapting to ensure that they retain the support of the majority of their people. In short, QEII is only monarch because it is the desire of the majority of the British population that she should have that role. Is that any less democratic that David Cameron being PM despite his party only winning 42% of the vote in an election where turnout was only around 60%?

Republicans seem unwilling to face facts. We have a monarchy because we want to have a monarchy. Directly electing a head of state might be more sensible; but human beings are not rational; we don't always want those things that are 'good for us' according to the elitist snobs who think they know best; we just want what we want.

.

Not necessarily. Its ok as long as the people support the current monarch, as its the case with QEII and many others. But as society evolves and a new generation of heirs comes up, there may come up the situation when the majority of people find their first representative useless or find a first representative who is a figurehead only useless. And then? They realize that they cant get rid of him or her. This is the moment that wont fit into a modern society or into the modern standard of democracy any longer, I am sure it will come in one or another country, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not in this century, but it will come.

[padams2359]

In my opinion, the Spanish Royal Family is riding the Eurostar at full speed toward a cliff that would abolish them. The reasons is too long to list at this point, and it is unfortunate.