Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[Osipi]

Lets remember too folks that there was a time when there were those that stood up for what they believed in and were persecuted and executed for heresy because they believed the world was round and revolved around the sun. The accepted belief was, at the time, that the world actually was flat.

Times change, nations change and what was right and good and believed to be true back then, is no longer valid and the Earth adapted to it.

What may have worked wonders 200,100 and maybe even 50 years ago may not work as well today. Change and adaptation is a good thing.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Again, what a nasty, nasty viewpoint.

People you like should be allowed to stay in the US.

People who you don't agree with should shut up or leave.

That's your clear viewpoint. It's extremely nasty.

Because I think American citizens who long to live under a monarchy should explore their options?

I think an even "nastier viewpoint" is the one that implies Americans who fought and died for democracy were wasting their time, but you are entitled to think whatever you please.

That's how we do it in the USA.

 

[CSENYC]

Because I think American citizens who long to live under a monarchy should explore their options?

I think an even "nastier viewpoint" is the one that implies Americans who fought and died for democracy were wasting their time, but you are entitled to think whatever you please.

That's how we do it in the USA.

Can you read?

Where did I ever say that I opposed democracy?

Your view-- "love it as-is or leave it" is Stalinist.

Read my post to see what I called for--rethinking the US's elected, partisan head of state--and then respond. With your nasty posts, you clearly haven't done that.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, etc. all have apolitical heads of state, separate from heads of government, and they are all much more democratic than the US is (as per Freedom House).

 

[Moonmaiden23]

You know CSENYC, debate and differences of opinion about subjects such as this one is fun and one of the reasons I like visiting this Board.

However you are dancing dangerously close to personal insult which is not fun at all, and which I am not going to either tolerate or engage in with you.

So, I am asking you as politely as possible to cease and desist going forward.

And now that we've gotten that out of the way?

[I could deal a lot better with a jerk as a head of state if the head of state was born into the position]
QUOTE

Your words, no?

FYI...citizens who did not love Stalinist Russia were not usually free to leave. So no..my suggestion is not quite "Stalinist".

 

[Osipi]

Maybe I'm missing something here but in the past few posts I have seen one person describe "Americans that want to live under a monarchy" and then "Countries that have an apolitical head of state".

It gets confusing here. Why isn't it possible to have a republic like the US already has and instead of installing a full blown, hereditary monarchy such as the UK has, just change the executive branch of the United States government and the Office of the President of the United States to be an apolitical position elected of the people, for the people and by the people every four years?

Then, the President of the United States would represent each and every American period. To me, that would be much better and also enhance what the Stars and Stripes stand for.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Probably because an overhaul of the Executive branch of government such as the one you describe would need to be preceded by an overhaul of the entire Constitution and the Electoral College that has decided how the the president is elected since the Republic was founded Osipi.

I am not necessarily against that, but practically speaking it will not happen, at least not in our lifetime.

 

[Osipi]

Who knows? Perhaps things will be so deteriorated after this presidential election cycle and we will witness all kinds of an aftermath regardless of who is actually elected into office that in order to either sink or swim, the powers that be may actually come to realize its time to revisit things and figure out how to solve problems.

Then again, I'm not going to hold my breath on that. Things have been in need of serious fixing for a very long time and the governmental departments hem and haw and go on vacations and nothing ever really gets done.

We just may have to live with things that are broken and get used to duct tape repairs now and then.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think the United States should be a hereditary monarchy or become a Commonwealth realm like Canada, but I personally would like to see it become a federal parliamentary republic like Germany. I agree with Moonmaiden though: the prospect of that ever happening is close to zero, first because the current system of government has been around for more than 200 years and, second, because the American people is literally brainwashed since an early age into believing the US presidential system is the best system of government in the world . There would never be enough support in the country then for a major constitutional revision, and no major political party or no major political leader are calling for it.

 

[CSENYC]

Moonmaiden23, your posts and your words are extremely nasty and condescending. You also don't seem to grasp what the posts that you respond to are saying.

You may also want to explore what a "head of state" is. That's what I'm talking about, not a "head of government." You seem to have no understanding of the differences between the two.

I'm ignoring you from now on.

Maybe I'm missing something here but in the past few posts I have seen one person describe "Americans that want to live under a monarchy" and then "Countries that have an apolitical head of state".

It gets confusing here. Why isn't it possible to have a republic like the US already has and instead of installing a full blown, hereditary monarchy such as the UK has, just change the executive branch of the United States government and the Office of the President of the United States to be an apolitical position elected of the people, for the people and by the people every four years?

Then, the President of the United States would represent each and every American period. To me, that would be much better and also enhance what the Stars and Stripes stand for.

I agree with you. May I add, though, that even when elected offices are nonpartisan, usually it's known who the Republican and who the Democrat are, and the parties support different "nonpartisan" candidates by giving out lists of recommended candidates. So I don't think that having an officially nonpartisan head of state would truly be nonpartisan if the office is elected by popular vote. Plus getting a consensus candidate would take getting much more than a majority of votes, and that's not really feasible in a nationwide election; it would take multiple votes to get to a near-unanimous consensus.

Perhaps doing it how Germany does: having the legislature elect the nonpartisan head of state, and requiring votes from, say, 75% of the legislators would work; that way no overtly partisan D or R could ever get enough votes. Then again, do we want Congress having one more thing to mess up?

Thus a nonpartisan monarch is a good way to ensure that the head of state is apolitical.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I am relieved to hear that you have decided to ignore me CSENYC, especially since you don't seem to have a clear idea of what it means to disagree with someone without insulting them and have decidedly skewed ideas about what it means to be truly "nasty".

Your decision to ignore me will save me the trouble of having to report you to the Mods, for which I am grateful.

 

[Osipi]

(shaking her head madly as she walks away) What a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into eh?

So many possible ways to fix what is wrong yet so many roadblocks to getting it all done and none of them are so good that everyone would agree with them.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think the discord of the election cycle has rubbed off and is affecting some of us, including myself!

 

[Lee-Z]

You guys sound like candidate-US-presidents in debate

The rest of the world looking on bothered bewildered confused

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Told ya..it's catching!

 

[Osipi]

I think the discord of the election cycle has rubbed off and is affecting some of us, including myself!

Maybe so (and I do have to admit the recent campaigns are driving me batty) but at least we're honest about it all and can say things like OOPS and sorry and clean up our words and continue on. Just like we learned to do in kindergarten. Then again, we're not politicians.

 

[Jacknch]

Lets now move on from specifically discussing the US election and back to discussing the topic of Monarchy V Republic. A reminder also for members to treat each other respectfully even when points of view differ, which will go far in avoiding the discussion being de-railed with personal arguments. Thanks you.

 

[COUNTESS]

It doesn't cost more to run our Republic, as it does to run a monarchy. Remember the vast sums of money that many sovereigns have accumulated have been at the expense of their subjects. Until the year of the fire at Windsor Castle the BRF paid no taxes. And their vast sums of wealth came from their ancestors taking what they will from those who could least defend themselves. Even now then sovereign to sovereign passing of jewels and property goes tax free. And you gets what you gets. Elizabeth is a fine woman and has taken her responsibility very seriously. Remember, she ascended when some still thought that she was anointed by God. Now, getting past that, we have had good presidents and bad. We are now involved with a very strange set of circumstances. We have a mentally unstable candidate running from our Conservative style party. many in his party are dismayed. Some outwardly disgusted, but here it is. I, believe, we will survive his lunacy and become better. Oh, and whoever mentioned it is cheaper to keep a monarchy, knows nothing about cost. And those3 "lavish vacations" are paid for by the president taking them. Not by taxpayers. And, also, remember the monarchies also for many years had private yachts, trains and planes. You don't think the queen hops onto a bus to get somewhere. And, her life is certainly not threatened as our president might be.

 

[Osipi]

The vacations that the President takes may be paid for by the President himself for himself and his family but we need to remember too that wherever the President goes, so does the Office of the President of the United States of America. One thing the President never completely does is get a vacation away from his job. Staff, Secret Service and security checks of the venue and many more things are very necessary when the President travels and these people need their salaries paid and their accommodations paid for and the President doesn't cover that out of his own pocket. Some of these kind of people remain with a President even after he is out of office.

Its basically the same thing with a monarch. No matter where he/she goes, there is still the staff and security and such to put into consideration. High profile people are high profile risks no matter where they are.

Its a price we pay no matter what kind of a head of state a nation has.

 

[EllieCat]

And, her [Elizabeth] life is certainly not threatened as our president might be.

Queen Victoria had several attempts on her life.

 

[Curryong]

King Edward VIII and the present Queen both had shots fired at them during the Trooping of the Colour ceremony. The fact that they were situations involving blanks and the perpetrators were arrested immediately doesn't make any similar situation less serious. Other members of the BRF, Charles and Anne, for example also had people wishing to harm them.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

King Edward VIII and the present Queen both had shots fired at them during the Trooping of the Colour ceremony. The fact that they were situations involving blanks and the perpetrators were arrested immediately doesn't make any similar situation less serious. Other members of the BRF, Charles and Anne, for example also had people wishing to harm them.

Who can forget the attempted kidnapping of Anne?

The Bloody Attempt to Kidnap a British Princess | History | Smithsonian

“Open, or I’ll shoot!” he yelled.

In response to one of Ball’s pleas, Princess Anne retorted, “Bloody likely.”

'If the man had succeeded in abducting Anne, she would have given him a hell of a time in captivity.'
Prince Philip

 

[CSENYC]

US presidents do NOT pay the costs of their vacations.

Air Force One costs $210,000 per hour of flight. If the president paid for that, 2 hours of flying time would consume the president's entire annual salary.

Plus the Secret Service and a whole entourage of people travel with the first family, and the hotel rooms and travel costs for all of them are paid by taxpayers.

Presidential vacations cost the taxpayers millions of dollars--and that applies to both Republican and Democratic presidents.

The British Royal Family flies commercially; I find that odd, but they even sometimes fly coach (likely just for show). I'm sure that they usually travel in paid first class and also have an expensive entourage of people, but it likely is cheaper than Air Force One.

 

[Lee-Z]

With all the trashtalking in the US presidential election show, i wish that there were an option for Michelle Obama to be a regent after Barack Obama stops reigning

I know it won't happen and that it's not the US way, but how can either of these candidates be taken seriously after all is said and done in this season's election-show...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think Michelle Obama is a wonder. The dignity with which she has conducted herself while receiving the kind of denigration and abuse I have NEVER in my lifetime seen directed toward a FLOTUS is admirable.

Barack Obama struck gold when he got her to agree to marry him.

But she has made it crystal clear that unlike former First Lady Hillary Clinton she harbors no political ambitions for herself whatsoever. Her main goal in life right now is guiding her lovely young daughters on the path to successful adulthood. In other words, motherhood trumps ambition for this woman.

Good for her, unfortunate for us.

I agree with you about the two candidates we have to choose from. Whomever is elected in a few weeks, I get the feeling that I am going to be echoing the words of one of the cardinals in conclave after the election of Borgia pope Alexander VI:

"Flee, for we are in the hands of a wolf!"

 

[COUNTESS]

The vacations that the President takes may be paid for by the President himself for himself and his family but we need to remember too that wherever the President goes, so does the Office of the President of the United States of America. One thing the President never completely does is get a vacation away from his job. Staff, Secret Service and security checks of the venue and many more things are very necessary when the President travels and these people need their salaries paid and their accommodations paid for and the President doesn't cover that out of his own pocket. Some of these kind of people remain with a President even after he is out of office.

Its basically the same thing with a monarch. No matter where he/she goes, there is still the staff and security and such to put into consideration. High profile people are high profile risks no matter where they are.

Its a price we pay no matter what kind of a head of state a nation has.

Yes, all the extras go with them, True enough. But they work for it for 4 years at a stretch, many hours a day, all the days they are in office. Bad or good they never leave office looking good. It takes it's toll. They are responsible for everything, the buck stops here. No waving and State Dinners as their sum. And the plane and many other perks are not a lifetime achievement. Constitutional monarchies are fine, for what they are in the places they have been for centuries. But, remember, those people were just born to it. They never work a day in their lives, BRF. Some of the Dutch princes, work at real jobs. And you have people such as the Greek Royal Family, who helped themselves to plenty and do nothing, including waving and state dinners.

 

[cepe]

It seems that some posts are comparing chalk and cheese.

There is no comparison between the POTUS and a Constitutional Monarch.

The Monarch works with the Head of Government (elected in the Uk on a 5 yr cycle). Unelected, it has the benefits of continuity and being there as the representative of everyone, not just those who voted for them.

this has turned into a discussion of the American Presidency which is one form of Republic vs Uk Monarchy. There is more out there.

The Monarch has a unify role - King Felipe of Spain has a role unifying Spain as the country struggles to form a Government. That would be difficult if there was President elected on a political basis.

THere are different models - Germany and Ireland have Gov and selected Presidency

FRance has a model of Political Presidency and a Prime Minister.

EDIT there are also absolute monarchs, ie some Arab States. And then there are pseudo democratic Presidents - possibly Russia but that is a matter of opinion.

It would be great if the discussion was on a broader basis

 

[Osipi]

I agree with you, Cepe. To focus on one model of a republic with an elected president (usually the USA) vs. one constitutional monarchy (usually the UK) is really limiting models that other countries are using successfully or unsuccessfully depending how one looks at it. There are even defunct models of both kinds.

What is good about them? What is bad about them and what could we come up with that would astound the global population and get us members on TRF on the list for next year's Nobel Peace Prize? Heck, some may even argue the fact that the only real solution and way to go towards a governmental system that would really, really work would be a New World Order even. Or a total egalitarian world order where we all live happily together and drink milk and cookies and take afternoon naps.

 

[CSENYC]

Yes, Cepe, the US president (or a president in a presidential systems) is certainly not the same as a constitutional monarch in Western Europe/the UK.

I think that the US presidential system should adopt more aspects of a constitutional monarchy or semi-presidential or parliamentary system--mainly a ceremonial "president", not elected as in the US model, and representative of everyone (or at least more than just one political party).

I may be wrong, but I believe that the US presidential office was originally designed to be like the UK monarch's position in the 1780s. Just as the latter position has changed significantly, so should the US presidential position.

I don't believe that the founding fathers of the US foresaw deep partisan division in the US, with the popularly-elected and powerful president heaping scorn on members of other political parties and otherwise creating division among Americans. Perhaps they would have established the presidency in a different way had they saw that coming.

 

[COUNTESS]

They saw the partisan division. They themselves disliked one another and distrusted one another. The New Englanders, did not like the southerners and hated slavery. A ceremonial position is nonsense. We have not had a president that "heaped scorn" on other4s. W. Bush got his way, but he was a decent man, not bright, but decent. Cheney was the problem. Too much money for someone who has no power and no real input. The Monarchies in Europe, which are long standing and have worked well within that system, seem fine. But a waste of money. England who seems to always have financial troubles, spend a great deal on ceremonies . They make money freom tourists from this. But their vast wealth has be purloined by getting tax free status for numerous years and stealing land and venues that filled their pockets. Look at the queen's jewels. They are beautiful, but what a waste. "Granny chips" could build 20 hospitals.

 

[CSENYC]

By "partisan", I mean "political party" partisan. There were no political parties when the US was first organized. George Washington was nonpartisan and was picked with overwhelming support.

I'd think that Democrats would say that George W. Bush scorned them. Republicans certainly think that Obama scorned them, calling them "enemies" and people who "cling" to guns and religion and whatever. Hillary called a large part of the electorate "deplorables". Those are all nasty remarks and both sides are culpable.

I'd doubt that the UK spends more per capita on ceremonies and the monarchy than the US spends on ceremonies and the presidency.