Why Constitutional Monarchies Are Best - Article

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Exactly. A president, however popular they might be, and however nice they might be personally (probably not very, because "nice" people tend not to make it to the top of the political tree as they aren't ruthless enough), represents one political party, so they are essentially divisive because a lot of people will not support that particular party.

That does not make them divisive, necessarily. There are ceremonal presidents who are not necessarily from a political party, and in any case once someone becomes President (Like Prime minister) he or she is there for all the people. SInce Monarchs are usually from rich and aristocratic families, it can be said that they cannot really represent the poor and working class

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Exactly. A president, however popular they might be, and however nice they might be personally (probably not very, because "nice" people tend not to make it to the top of the political tree as they aren't ruthless enough), represents one political party, so they are essentially divisive because a lot of people will not support that particular party.

A president doesn't have to come from any political party. They can be a noted and/or accomplished figure instead, such as a scientist (Albert Einstein was offered Israel's Presidency in 1952, if I recall correctly, but he declined) or a writer or a poet. Just so long as the nation that asks them to serve as their president is proud of them, that really is all that matters.

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Denville

That does not make them divisive, necessarily. There are ceremonal presidents who are not necessarily from a political party, and in any case once someone becomes President (Like Prime minister) he or she is there for all the people. SInce Monarchs are usually from rich and aristocratic families, it can be said that they cannot really represent the poor and working class

Yeah, a country with a ceremonial president can theoretically invite a scientist or a poet or a writer to become its president. For instance, Israel offered Albert Einstein the opportunity to become its president in 1952, but he declined. So, Yeah, a country's ceremonial president doesn't necessarily have to have a prior political history. They could, but they are not obligated to do so. Heck, even a former royal could theoretically become a country's ceremonial president.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Futurist

A president doesn't have to come from any political party. They can be a noted and/or accomplished figure instead, such as a scientist (Albert Einstein was offered Israel's Presidency in 1952, if I recall correctly, but he declined) or a writer or a poet. Just so long as the nation that asks them to serve as their president is proud of them, that really is all that matters.

A non-ceremonial, head of government-as-well-as-state president generally does.

And Israel 's last PM was nicknamed "King Bibi" for very good reasons and was just about as bad as any potentate in the end, so the fact there was a lovely, likable man as president at the same time didn't do bupkis about that.

[Curryong]

At least with elected officials like Presidents citizens (usually) know what to expect during their term of office. And that is so also with poets and writers who are appointed to such positions. They serve and then retire into private life. Whereas with a monarchy what citizens/subjects get for their lifetime is very much the result of a genetic lottery.

And short of revolution there is no real way of getting rid of a monarch. I’m not talking about downright disastrous monarchs, but unintelligent, deadly dull, under-performing, over-rated individuals who inherit a throne and therefore a job for life. Their population just has to put up with it and hope the next generation will be better. I think it’s pretty notable actually that no former monarchies’ populations are pleading for a return to the old days.

[BigLenny]

This article might explain why constitutional monarchies aren't the be-all-and-end-all government type in the world.

I'm no monarchist, but I still see the appeal of monarchies because in republics, the age-old mantra that we should continue trying to elect honest people for the job boils down to leaving everything up to chance. People have varying definitions on who is qualified that they often bicker over it. Not to mention that there are many instances of presidents stealing from their countries' treasuries for themselves. If you think that people fighting over power is part of the "beauty of republics", then you're sorely mistaken.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Futurist

. So, Yeah, a country's ceremonial president doesn't necessarily have to have a prior political history. They could, but they are not obligated to do so. Heck, even a former royal could theoretically become a country's ceremonial president.

Depends also how or by whom the President is elected. Heren in Germany the President is not elected by tge people but b a special Assembly who consits of all numbers of our Parlament and the same number of people send by the federal states.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Romania has the best system for 2021 as it actually closes the undeniable democratic gap: they have an elected president. At the same time, within the republican framework, the former Royal House is recognized and has a ceremonial and protocollary role in society.

This symbiosis of a Royal House inside a republic is no nouveauté: the United Provinces of the Netherlands (1588–1795) were formally a republic but they effectively had a Royal House functioning within the republican framework (the House of Orange-Nassau).

Picture: Princess Margareta adresses the Romanian Parliament. On the screen, in the republican Parliament: "H.M. Margareta, Custodian of the Romanian Crown". Note that the lecture still has the un-adapted republican Arms (uncrowned eagle as shield bearer) while the wall of the Chamber now depicts the newly adapted "royal" Arms (crowned eagle as shield bearer).

I would not mind my country (the Netherlands) becoming a republic, with a ceremonial and protocollary role for the former Royal House. In essence most monarchies in Europe are already ceremonial and protocollary anyway. It would take the angle out of the debate as hereditary succession simply is hard to defend anno 2021.

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Depends also how or by whom the President is elected. Heren in Germany the President is not elected by tge people but b a special Assembly who consits of all numbers of our Parlament and the same number of people send by the federal states.

The same is also true for Israel, FWIW. Israel's President is elected by its Knesset (parliament).

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Romania has the best system for 2021 as it actually closes the undeniable democratic gap: they have an elected president. At the same time, within the republican framework, the former Royal House is recognized and has a ceremonial and protocollary role in society.

This symbiosis of a Royal House inside a republic is no nouveauté: the United Provinces of the Netherlands (1588–1795) were formally a republic but they effectively had a Royal House functioning within the republican framework (the House of Orange-Nassau).

Picture: Princess Margareta adresses the Romanian Parliament. On the screen, in the republican Parliament: "H.M. Margareta, Custodian of the Romanian Crown". Note that the lecture still has the un-adapted republican Arms (uncrowned eagle as shield bearer) while the wall of the Chamber now depicts the newly adapted "royal" Arms (crowned eagle as shield bearer).

I would not mind my country (the Netherlands) becoming a republic, with a ceremonial and protocollary role for the former Royal House. In essence most monarchies in Europe are already ceremonial and protocollary anyway. It would take the angle out of the debate as hereditary succession simply is hard to defend anno 2021.

I wonder if it would have still been as easy for Romania to have such an arrangement if the other Hohenzollern branch would have also established a claim to the Romanian Kingship following King Michael's death. Then again, if such an arrangement would have been recognized while King Michael was still alive (and it might have very well been), then it would have been easier.