Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[BeatrixFan]

Thanks guys. Love the comment. DonnaK - I thought about this and though it's fair to say that William isn't the immediate heir and Victoria is, I think the comparison is still justified. Victoria not only carries out Royal engagements in Sweden but she represents Sweden in other countries and she seems to be present at every state event. In return, she has alot of respect and though William has Charles to go through before he gets his place as King - he should still be preparing for it, especially as he isn't doing anything else at the moment. At the end of the day, the question that will be asked of him is "Why is he qualified to be King?". And at the moment, he isn't.

 

[donnaK]

Thanks guys. Love the comment. DonnaK - I thought about this and though it's fair to say that William isn't the immediate heir and Victoria is, I think the comparison is still justified. Victoria not only carries out Royal engagements in Sweden but she represents Sweden in other countries and she seems to be present at every state event. In return, she has alot of respect and though William has Charles to go through before he gets his place as King - he should still be preparing for it, especially as he isn't doing anything else at the moment. At the end of the day, the question that will be asked of him is "Why is he qualified to be King?". And at the moment, he isn't.

William is in the military school right now. That's part of his training to be the King. Victoria is a woman and has not gone through years of military schools and service like her male colleagues, thus she started a little bit early on her duties. But so far she hasn't done anything special other than the routine royal duties as a heir, the rest of heirs are pretty much doing the same, or even more.

 

[Elspeth]

I think this is a very well-thought-out argument, but (ain't there always one of them ) it seems to me to hinge too much on personalities. While you're saying that things will be OK through Charles's reign, there are quite a few people out there who don't want to see his reign happen and who would even prefer that he stand down from the line of succession in favour of William. Not everybody apparently sees William as boring. I think also that since he's just in his mid-20s and not settled down to anything yet, it's too early to know anything about him for sure.

Equally, what if the Latvian president hadn't been such a regal lady? These electoral systems throw up their fair share of third-rate people, and the saving grace is that the bad ones can be got rid of faster than a monarch - but the good ones also have to go at the end of their term of office regardless of how successful they've been.

 

[BeatrixFan]

William is in the military school right now. That's part of his training to be the King.

Is it? In this day and age, why do we need a King who is trained in the ways of shooting and bombing? And he can't actually go to any war zones, so what was the point? It has turned out to be a waste of time and money that is designed to make it look like he's doing something. His military training will have no bearing on his role as King at all. Surely he'd have been better off in the diplomatic service?

Equally, what if the Latvian president hadn't been such a regal lady?

Aha. And therein lies the conundrum. I suppose one takes the rough the smooth and if there's a dodgy president in office, you use your vote to get them out which in the case of a dodgy King or Queen you can't do.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Well done, Beatrix Fan. I enjoyed the article very much.

 

[Henri M.]

Is it? In this day and age, why do we need a King who is trained in the ways of shooting and bombing? And he can't actually go to any war zones, so what was the point? It has turned out to be a waste of time and money that is designed to make it look like he's doing something. His military training will have no bearing on his role as King at all. Surely he'd have been better off in the diplomatic service?



Aha. And therein lies the conundrum. I suppose one takes the rough the smooth and if there's a dodgy president in office, you use your vote to get them out which in the case of a dodgy King or Queen you can't do.

It simply is all about tradition and continuity. You see this in all monarchies. It is also a bit weird that hundreds and thousands of soldiers have to make a solemn oath of loyalty to King and Country and fight in the name of the King, of that same King apparently has never seen or experienced parts of military life.

This is not meant to drill William of Wales into an active combat. This is meant to create a strong bond between the future monarch and the armed forces of the realms which once will be under his sceptre.

I'm bit of amazed that you were not able to see this by yourself.

 

[BeatrixFan]

There's tradition and then there's an actual waste of resources and possible insult to real soldiers. A 24 year old soldier died last week in Iraq - he trained and he went off to fight. That's what soldiers do. In this day and age, how can we really justify letting Wills into the army just so he can wear a pretty uniform and swan about in the Mess whilst his peers are doing real soldiering? In 2007, the monarch can't go to war. The troops go out in his name only, his name or an oath to him doesn't stop them being killed. I did indeed see the intention of sending him to Sandhurst what I also see is an anachronism. It's a grand version of a dressing up box and I personally find it out of date. If he's not going into active combat, he doesn't need to be in the army and to try and justify such a thing with "tradition" is a bit weak IMO. George Bush wasn't in the army, Gloria Accoyo wasn't in the army, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf wasn't in the army - yet they can still do the job of sending the troops out. It makes no sense and it seems to me to be just a waste of resources and an insult to real soldiers who sign up with a real intention to serve their country.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

It simply is all about tradition and continuity. You see this in all monarchies

Exactly.

As an obvious outsider, it seems, to me, that it is the institution not the indivdual with whom the people bind themselves to.

The institution of the British monarchy has weathered larger crises (hence the Abdication of 1936) than those that have beset the present royal family, and the monarchy has adapted, re-grouped, and continued in existence. By adjusting to the sentiment of the times even, as in the case of Edward VIII, by sacrificing one of its own. Again, it is the institution of the monarchy that matters, not the individual.

Of course, I could be completely wrong since I am an outsider.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why can't you swear loyalty to a President though? For that matter, why does it have to be the troops swearing loyalty to a person - why not just their country? If it's a tradition to have people play-acting the parts of soldiers when they actually aren't, it's a tradition we're best out of.

 

[Henri M.]

Why can't you swear loyalty to a President though? For that matter, why does it have to be the troops swearing loyalty to a person - why not just their country? If it's a tradition to have people play-acting the parts of soldiers when they actually aren't, it's a tradition we're best out of.

Well we still do not have the Scottish Republic or the Republic England but the United Kingdom, with all its logics and unlogics which add to the charms of it.

The male Heir performing military service is as traditional as strawberries with cream at Wimbledon. No matter the fact that since the Napoleontic era no any West European monarch him- or herself has actively acted as Commander in Chief of their armed forces.

You can put question marks to everything. Why should the Dutch Queen wear a long robe and travel in a Golden State Carriage to Parliament? Why can't she take a car?

Why is there a lavish State Banquet in the Palais de l'Elysée when the president of Germany visits the president of France? Can't the good man simply take his German friend to a bistro at Boulevard Montparnasse?

Etc. Etc.

It are the absurdities of life which spices our everyday's boredom.

 

[BeatrixFan]

You haven't really got the hang of this have you? It's a debate about Monarchy and Republic - the point is to raise questions about aspects of both and simply saying "Because it is that way", doesn't make it right. I know it's that way, that's why I'm raising the point.

Well we still do not have the Scottish Republic or the Republic England but the United Kingdom, with all its logics and unlogics which add to the charms of it.

I know we don't have the Scottish Republic or the Republic of England - that's what I'm saying. Should we and what would it be like it we did?

You can put question marks to everything. Why should the Dutch Queen wear a long robe and travel in a Golden State Carriage to Parliament? Why can't she take a car?

Why is there a lavish State Banquet in the Palais de l'Elysée when the president of Germany visits the president of France? Can't the good man simply take his German friend to a bistro at Boulevard Montparnasse?

Everything that happens with a monarchy can basically happen with a Republic. We can still have the sashes and pretty gowns but they'll be donned by the President or First Lady instead of a Queen. Ascot can still happen but it'll be the President who makes his way onto the course in the carriage. We can still have honours lists and we can still have parades and a grand state opening of parliament - but it could be a President not a Queen who does the opening. State banquets are important to diplomacy and as you have just proved - they can be done by Presidents just as well as Monarchs. The point of the thread is to debate the pros and cons of monarchy and republic, not to tell us what a monarchy is.

As to this claim that it's traditional, so was hanging but we got rid of that. Simply because something is traditional, doesn't make it right for the modern age and when one looks at it, nothing the monarch does can't be done by the President.

 

[Elspeth]

Aha. And therein lies the conundrum. I suppose one takes the rough the smooth and if there's a dodgy president in office, you use your vote to get them out which in the case of a dodgy King or Queen you can't do.

Indeed, but if you have a very good president in office in a situation with term limits, you lose a good leader after a few years. And if you don't have term limits, an unscrupulous leader can last even longer than some monarchs.

 

[Elspeth]

Why can't you swear loyalty to a President though?

Because the president, however s/he gets there, is usually representing a political party. Whether it's overt like in the USA or indirect when a government (which usually consists of the majority party) elects an elder statesman, who's often a retired politician, your head of state reflects the mood of the moment far more than a monarch does. And I for one wouldn't want to swear loyalty to a president who supported a political party I didn't support, because I think that forces a person's conscience. Once a country becomes a reflection of the political party that happens to be in power, you're in for some very divisive experiences.

For that matter, why does it have to be the troops swearing loyalty to a person - why not just their country? If it's a tradition to have people play-acting the parts of soldiers when they actually aren't, it's a tradition we're best out of.

But what do you mean by swearing loyalty to a country? There has to be a symbol that represents the country, whether it's a flag, a monarch, a supposed national characteristic, or something. Personally I'd prefer to swear loyalty to a monarch than to some superannuated politician posing as a statesman and pretending to represent people we all know he doesn't really represent. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, but you're in for deep trouble if you depend on having the system throw up the exceptions rather than the run-of-the-mill party hacks.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Because the president, however s/he gets there, is usually representing a political party.

Ah but in the Latvian model, the President isn't political. Indeed, Vaira Vike-Frieberga was chosen because she had an incredible career but she'd also never been involved with a political party and so the President there isn't just another politician, it's something quite different. You raise a good point though because if we had an American system, I'd have serious problems. I could happily give my loyalty and allegiance to someone like Hilary Clinton but I couldn't do it with George Bush and so maybe if we have a President, a President has to be totally politically impartial.

But what do you mean by swearing loyalty to a country? There has to be a symbol that represents the country, whether it's a flag, a monarch, a supposed national characteristic, or something.

I agree. What I meant was that it isn't nessecary to swear allegiance or loyalty to a person at all. A flag would do just as well if people felt they couldn't swear allegiance to a President. But with an impartial President I don't know if that would be an issue. Whether it's a flag or whatever, I think this idea that we could only ever swear allegiance to the monarch is incorrect.

 

[FarahJoy]

Do you think that there is a difference in daily life ?

Are people's behaviors different whether they live in a kingdom or a democracy ?

 

[Madame Royale]

A Constitutional Monarchy (Kingdom) is a Democracy, so I'm not quite sure what it is you mean.

An Absolute Monarchy, however...

 

[Attaining Grace]

Hello everyone,

I'm an Australian too, KelliB, and I absolutely agree with you. I'll be very sad if Australia becomes a republic and I really don't see the point. I think that it's just part of a hidden agenda by certain people here.

I like living in a constitutional monarchy because the Royal Family is apart from politics and represents stability, tradition and heritage. Many more republics have had civil wars than monarchies. I don't like the idea of having a President here at all.

In fact it's almost enough to make me try to become an English citizen!

Best Regards,
Attaining Grace

 

[Chimene]

Very interesting question, one I'm not sure I know how to answer. On the one hand, I like the tradition and continuity which a monarch offers. On the other, I like the fact that I'm not regarded as a subject and can control my own destiny.

You asked if certain countries are best suited for a republic, I think that's true. I can't really imagine the US as a monarchy because our founding principles were born out of a necessity to move away from British rule. And France had a choice and decided that was not the best system for them.

In the end, what we were taught influenced our thinking, and therefore we become a product of our own history. Would I choose England over the US? It’s hard to say – the grass looks greener on the other side sometimes, but the idealist in me knows that no system is perfect.

By the way, what a fantastic article!

 

[BeatrixFan]

By the way, what a fantastic article!

Thankyou!

 

[RoyallyRich]

I prefer Monarchy over a republic.

 

[crisscross1]

This is a great debate and one that my husband and I discuss in depth whenever the subject of being a republic rears it's ugly head in Australia.
I am not a staunch royalist by any means but I do think that the Monarchy works just fine and I think that 'if it aint' broke, don't fix it'.
The cost involved in Australia becoming a republic would be phenominal and I honestly don't see that it can be justified.
As attaininggrace mentioned this subject in Australia is someone's hidden agenda and has been for many years. Hopefully nothing will ever come of it.

 

[COUNTESS]

I assume that Austrailia will become a republic, if the majority wishes it to be. This is, certainly, a decision for Austrailians. I have no idea of the costs either way. I am an American and feel that we have had bad presidents, good presidents, dumb presidents, etc. {political dig deleted - Elspeth} it isn't the person it is the ideal that is important. Perhaps, you have to learn that when you are young. It is not an idealaism (if there is such a word), it is a knowledge that this man shall pass. There are bad monarchs and good, dumb, etc. But monarchs stay for their lifetimes in many instances, unless you have a revolution. So monarchy has greater drawbacks.

 

[Elspeth]

That might be the case if monarchs had the same sort of executive powers that presidents do, especially presidents of countries without parliamentary systems. As it stands in the UK, the Queen can't create the same sort of damage that could potentially be created by a US president making a series of bad foreign-policy decisions, so the notion of having a bad king for 20 years isn't, at least to me, as much of a drawback as the notion of having a bad president for 8 years.

One of the main advantages of monarchy is the way party politics is separated from the position of Head of State, and another is the continuity of the position of monarch and the ability to have a longer-term view of things than is usually held by politicians with their eyes on the next election.

 

[Emperor of America]

The majority of the American people would not welcome a monarchy either as an absolute or even a constitutional monarchy as we were raised to believe (maybe naively) in electing a person to lead us. I do think it is too bad that we could not have an elected leader to handle the business of running the country and a royal family to represent us and handle the good will and diplomacy. The same would be nice with other countries where the monarchy has been abolished. Keep the elected leaders and let the royal families act as ambassadors. Perhaps the citizens do not want to be under the rule of a monarch simply because of luck of their birth, but who better to represent the best side of the people of a nation.

Keep in mind that a monarchy does not always need to be hereditary. Perhaps the United States would be more keen to an elective monarchy. Americans would elect an impartial citizen to serve as their monarch and head of state for life. And to make sure that the throne stayed a neutral institution, it would be a requirement that candidates for the crown did not belong to or support any political parties. We would still have a president as our head of government and executive, elected to four year terms. The monarch, serving for life, would have a purely ceremonial role identical to that of other constitutional monarchies in Europe. The only difference would be that once the reigning monarch died, instead of being replaced by an heir, Americans would elect another citizen to be their new monarch. This would be fair and equal, since all citizens could be chosen for the role, yet would still provide all of the benefits that come with a constitutional monarchy. Any thoughts?

 

[RoyallyRich]

Keep in mind that a monarchy does not always need to be hereditary. Perhaps the United States would be more keen to an elective monarchy. Americans would elect an impartial citizen to serve as their monarch and head of state for life. And to make sure that the throne stayed a neutral institution, it would be a requirement that candidates for the crown did not belong to or support any political parties. We would still have a president as our head of government and executive, elected to four year terms. The monarch, serving for life, would have a purely ceremonial role identical to that of other constitutional monarchies in Europe. The only difference would be that once the reigning monarch died, instead of being replaced by an heir, Americans would elect another citizen to be their new monarch. This would be fair and equal, since all citizens could be chosen for the role, yet would still provide all of the benefits that come with a constitutional monarchy. Any thoughts?

Well Emperor,I think that this arrangement resembles the Malaysian Monarchical Federation.It might work.But it will create several mini Royal Families.And what qualifications does the citizen have to have in order to be elected as the Monarch Sovereign?Patriotism? Wealth?Lineage?Good looks?Right education?

 

[crisiñaki]

I think there are very different types of monarchies even inside Europe, for example the UK and Denmark are two of the strongest models and are widely recognized as symbol of unity, it's hard to conceive those countries as republics, they have never been and who knows if they'll ever be

the Netherlands or Sweden are quite strong as well, but the institution isn't that important for people, right? that's the way I perceive it, is there but people isn't that much worried about if it is there or not as long as the system works and they are happy

another much different case is Belgium and Spain, where the country itself has a division of languages and lifestyles that probably don't get well with a centralist government system, a rising number of republicans and growing losing of respect for the RF; Spain has had 2 republics before and I believe that if it wasn't for Franco, Spain would still be a republic

 

[WordsUponTheWind]

Royals for Presentation

Royals for presenting their country, only minor political power for them.
Preserving style, glamour, modesty(?) etc. all that I miss looking at several politicans. Slogan like Queen and "Kaiser" for president (not US like, our president doenst have much political power, compared to the U.S. one)
This avoids political directions of social events like for the Noble Price, Red Cross, Fighting Aids, No Barrier or some local help. But I dont would give them full reign power. Democracy combined with Royality.

 

[Next Star]

There is an advantage and disadvanage to everyting in life. Here are my thoughts on republic vs.monarchy.First I will talk about the republic government. When your country is apart of a republic you have the right
to chose your own leader being you feel he or she is qualified enough to
handle the job as head of state.This makes you feel good that you have
the power to have your voice being heard. Now the monarchy when your
country has this type of government your leader is not chosen by the
people but is hereditardy and holds his or her postion for life.And he or
she has no power over government but he or she respects the country
with their duties and other members of the royal family are also represtatives.
I like the republic being I have the right to decide my leader might be but I wonder what if the republic was turned into a monachy but deep in my heart I do not see that happening any time soon now or later in the future.

 

[Her_Majesty]

My personal opinion is... I love to be a Royal Watcher, but I am not a monarhist and rather glad to live in a Republic then in a monarchy.
Most of the monarchs are just an ornament with not a single piece of power (only representatives... and it is nice to see them representing their country). Sometimes it seems to me there is no space for a monarchy anymore in special countries); but on the other hand there are countries which I cannot imagine without a King or Queen leading it (like Britain).
But my point of View is clear.

 

[Isana]

I think speaking of the advantages of monarchy vs. republic depends on what kind of republic you have in mind. One with a political powerful president (like France or the US) or one with a representative president who only serves as a figurehead similar to a monarch (like in Germany, Italy or Austria).
In comparison to a representative president a monarchy is more advantageous, IMO. Simply because I think a monarchy is more glamourous and gets more attention and their members are better known because of their lifelong (or at least over decades) service, hence they are more suitable to represent their country both at home and abroad. And then a merely representative function doesn't need to be held by a professional politician who is elected either, because the person doesn't get to take any actual decision.
How many people who don't come from those countries I mentioned for example would know the name of their presidents? Not many I'm sure, but a lot of people know some members of Royal families and are interested in them, as this forum shows.
In comparison to a "political" president that is a whole different story of course, but to introduce such a presidency into a former monarchy would (usually) be a major change of the political system. Most representative monarchies have the monarch as head-of-state and a head of government as political leader, like in the UK for example. To introduce another powerful president alongside the head of government (like in France) would change the whole "workings" and division of powers in the country. And to turn the head of government into the head of state (like in the US) would bestow that person with much more political power than he/she originally had and therefore be a major shift in the balance of powers as well. That is of course not impossible to do but me a much bigger change in the constitution than just replacing the monarch with a president.