The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:52 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 320
Why Constitutional Monarchies Are Best - Article

Interesting article about why the US should be a constitutional monarchy, on Saturday's Real Clear Politics:

3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake - Vox

The article, and other articles by the same author that are linked from it, basically say that constitutional monarchies are best because (1) they have parliamentary systems that result in less gridlock than presidential systems, and (2) constitutional monarchs stay out of politics and let democracy run without their interference, unlike presidential system.

I find the prospect of having one political party run everything, as in a parliamentary system, frightening, but otherwise like the monarchy parts of what the author says.

Thoughts?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-05-2015, 10:51 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,400
The main advantage IMHO of a constitutional monarchy is the clear separation between the ceremonial and politically neutral role of the Head of State and the partisan role of head of government. The flipside, however, is that monarchy is ultimately based on the hereditary principle, which is hard to defend, except in countries where there is clear bond between the reigning Royal Family and the history of the nation.

With respect to parliamentary government, I agree with the article that it has many positive advantages compared to the US presidential system. Furthermore, with the notable exception of Britain, most parliamentary democracies use some form. of proportional representation method of election, which makes it impossible for any single party to run the government alone as coalitions have to be built to form the cabinet.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-15-2021, 06:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Los Angeles area, United States
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Interesting article about why the US should be a constitutional monarchy, on Saturday's Real Clear Politics:

3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake - Vox

The article, and other articles by the same author that are linked from it, basically say that constitutional monarchies are best because (1) they have parliamentary systems that result in less gridlock than presidential systems, and (2) constitutional monarchs stay out of politics and let democracy run without their interference, unlike presidential system.

I find the prospect of having one political party run everything, as in a parliamentary system, frightening, but otherwise like the monarchy parts of what the author says.

Thoughts?
FWIW, a country can be a parliamentary system without it actually being a monarchy. Israel, for instance. One can argue that Israel's President serves a similar role as a monarch would, except the position is term-limited (I think; one term of seven years) and not hereditary.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-15-2021, 06:03 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Los Angeles area, United States
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The main advantage IMHO of a constitutional monarchy is the clear separation between the ceremonial and politically neutral role of the Head of State and the partisan role of head of government. The flipside, however, is that monarchy is ultimately based on the hereditary principle, which is hard to defend, except in countries where there is clear bond between the reigning Royal Family and the history of the nation.

With respect to parliamentary government, I agree with the article that it has many positive advantages compared to the US presidential system. Furthermore, with the notable exception of Britain, most parliamentary democracies use some form. of proportional representation method of election, which makes it impossible for any single party to run the government alone as coalitions have to be built to form the cabinet.
Yeah, if one is an egalitarian, then arguing in favor of a hereditary head of state sounds rather difficult to defend--unless of course the alternative would be worse, such as some kind of authoritarian and/or totalitarian dictatorship. In theory, one can have an elective monarchy, but even then, this would have to be limited to royals and nobles, no? It's not like any commoner could simply be elected monarch, right? But some countries, such as Israel, do have a symbolic figurehead role for their president, who functions much like a monarch other than the fact that they are term-limited and it's not a hereditary position. Israel's President is likewise expected to be in a large sense above politics, et cetera. And the beauty of this is that anyone can become Israel's President; you don't need to be a royal or a noble or anything of that sort. In fact, I don't even think that you actually have to be Jewish for this!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-15-2021, 07:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
And the beauty of this is that anyone can become "...." President

In Germany we have such a system too... And it is shitty! Imho the problem is, that the future monarch is for his/her whole life trained to become a Royal, while the elected counterparts are not - and it shows.... They are usually not up to the task.

The only exception we had here in Germany was one dude "von Weizsäcker": Yep, he was a noble man.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-15-2021, 07:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Los Angeles area, United States
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
In Germany we have such a system too... And it is shitty! Imho the problem is, that the future monarch is for his/her whole life trained to become a Royal, while the elected counterparts are not - and it shows.... They are usually not up to the task.

The only exception we had here in Germany was one dude "von Weizsäcker": Yep, he was a noble man.
Edward VIII of Britain was trained his whole life to become a royal, and yet he didn't make a particularly good royal.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-16-2021, 01:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Edward VIII of Britain was trained his whole life to become a royal, and yet he didn't make a particularly good royal.
Oh c'mon! He was not even crowned!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-16-2021, 02:06 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,875
What about Wilhelm II?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-16-2021, 03:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
What about Wilhelm II?
He was not a "real" constitutional Monarch, but the decisive part of the government. Not a good example!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-16-2021, 03:57 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Imho the problem is, that the future monarch is for his/her whole life trained to become a Royal, while the elected counterparts are not - and it shows.... They are usually not up to the task.
How does constitutionality make the slightest bit of difference in this case, given that royals are by definition there for life, whatever system of government they've got?

Many were there for their whole lives. Many were trained. Many were not so good.

"Crowned" doesn’t really make much of a difference for Edward, either, considering he managed to alarm his entire Cabinet while he was there.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-16-2021, 06:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
How does constitutionality make the slightest bit of difference in this case...
Well, since the Monarchs have less political responsibilities nowadays, they make less mistakes.

Their job is mainly to entertain the kids and the elderly, which flock to their visits.. and to be unifying as Heads of State. A job, they all do well!

Our Federal Presidents here in Germany don't give me good feelings, quite the opposite!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-19-2021, 10:54 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Well, since the Monarchs have less political responsibilities nowadays, they make less mistakes.

Their job is mainly to entertain the kids and the elderly, which flock to their visits.. and to be unifying as Heads of State. A job, they all do well!

Our Federal Presidents here in Germany don't give me good feelings, quite the opposite!
Political responsibility doesn't necessarily matter, though. When you get a monarch who still doesn't want to do the job, or does it badly, it's quite alarming and usually destabilizing — and then you are generally stuck with that person, without recourse to an election or term limit. Then what?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-20-2021, 03:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
When you get a monarch who still doesn't want to do the job, or does it badly, it's quite alarming and usually destabilizing "..." Then what?
But Monarchs don't behave that way! Why? It is not "off with their heads" anymore, but the punishment for failures of constitutional Monarchs is nevertheless very harsh and drastic: Abolishment of Monarchy!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-20-2021, 06:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,400
Well, Barbados just (officially) ditched the Queen this week. So I guess they didn't get the memo.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-20-2021, 06:15 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,938
I think the keyword to this discussion is actually "constitutional" rather than "monarchy". Absolute monarchy has mostly gone the route of the pet rock and has faded into obscurity as something of the past that has proven to be a detriment to a egalitarian society whereas a "constitutional" form of government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people" is at the heart of setting laws and policies for the good of all and limits the power of one to override the all. The monarch becomes the representative of *all* the people hence why being apolitical as the Head of State is so important.

In short, people got fed up with told what to do and found their voice and demanded representation. Nice part about a hereditary monarchy is that, unlike in a republic, there's no fight and green dollars spent to elect the next person that will represent *all* the people. In a republic, it's impossible for a Head of State to represent all the people because, for the most part, it's party politics that gets him to that spot in the first place.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-20-2021, 07:00 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
But Monarchs don't behave that way! Why? It is not "off with their heads" anymore, but the punishment for failures of constitutional Monarchs is nevertheless very harsh and drastic: Abolishment of Monarchy!
Edward VIII was bad enough that there hasn't been such a drastic example since. Why? He never wanted to be king, but felt trapped there. Wrong place, wrong guy, wrong time.

Constantine II was well-meaning but couldn't cope with a combination of circumstances and politics. Greece doesn't have a monarchy anymore, yes.

Belgium does, however. They managed to force out the king they felt had done them wrong, so apparently you can dispose of a monarch you disapprove of and keep the system going. Though it's very unpleasant to get rid of the head of state in a monarchy or a republic, it seems.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-21-2021, 08:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
But Monarchs don't behave that way! Why? It is not "off with their heads" anymore, but the punishment for failures of constitutional Monarchs is nevertheless very harsh and drastic: Abolishment of Monarchy!
How? Edward VIII was a failure as a king - the monarchy in the UK is still around. he wasn't badly treated, he was exiled but that was the worst that happened to him
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-21-2021, 08:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the keyword to this discussion is actually "constitutional" rather than "monarchy". Absolute monarchy has mostly gone the route of the pet rock and has faded into obscurity as something of the past that has proven to be a detriment to a egalitarian society whereas a "constitutional" form of government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people" is at the heart of setting laws and policies for the good of all and limits the power of one to override the all. The monarch becomes the representative of *all* the people hence why being apolitical as the Head of State is so important.

n:
absolute monarchy has gone in Europe, for the most part, but not everywhere. There are other kingdoms where the monarch has much more power
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-21-2021, 08:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
In a republic, it's impossible for a Head of State to represent all the people because, for the most part, it's party politics that gets him to that spot in the first place.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-21-2021, 09:09 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post


[...]


In a republic, it's impossible for a Head of State to represent all the people because, for the most part, it's party politics that gets him to that spot in the first place.

I do live in a monarchy and I can assure you it equally does not represent all the people either as there are quite a lot around who do not embrace the idea of hereditary succession and prefer to have a democratically elected head of state.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
monarchy versus republic, united states of america


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Belgian Abdication, Succession and Constitutional Issues Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 17 11-23-2021 10:55 AM
"Why Princess Anne is the best king we never had": 2010 Daily Mail Article sarahedwards2 The Princess Royal and Family 30 10-02-2012 03:03 PM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation crown jewels duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history ingrid-alexandra japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia norway crown princely couple politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×