The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 04-02-2018, 05:45 PM
LadyRohan's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sweden, Slovenia
Posts: 566
[QUOTE=Kitty1224;2088256]
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post
I agree but at the same time America is better off not being a monarchy. It’s been like that for 400 years. Now I like Felipe but I am not ignorant to the fact that their monarchy is fragile and will likely go away. Wow some of you guys here just wish every county would be a monarchy. Please live in the real world.
The United States of America is a nation that’s barely 242 years old, and before that, it was all monarchical, whether its lands were under the rule of the British, French, Spanish, Mexican or any of the native tribes of the continent.
Whether or not you like Felipe as a person is not very relevant, and shows why so many Americans seemingly struggle to understand the concept of monarchy. It is not personal, and it has very little to do with personality. It is institutional.
Those who believe in the monarchy as a system of governance do not fight specifically for the rights of one person. It’s not an episode of ‘Idol’ or an issue of a celebrity magazine. Monarchy, as in the Spanish one for example, is how we choose to govern our lands, because it links us deeply to our past, and it functions well in our present situations.
The Spanish throne was the one who sponsored the voyage of Christopher Columbus more than five centuries ago, who then discovered the New World (the Americas), and without whom, your nations history would not come to be in the way that it did.
The Spanish throne is stable and historic, and just because it was vacant during the years of Franco, and restored following his death, does not mean it is unstable and at risk, today or from any foreseeable occurence tomorrow.

I would urge you to actually support your view with an argument or any kind of reason. It makes for a much more interesting debate. Any namecalling or random thoughts on who lives in ‘the real world’ or not, does not belong and contributes nothing to an informed exchange of ideas and perspectives.
__________________

__________________
"He who has never failed to reach perfection, has a right to be the harshest critic" - Queen Elizabeth II
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 04-02-2018, 06:11 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, Norway
Posts: 3,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitty1224 View Post
I believe the US is doing very well as a republic.
Well, that post of mine you quoted is from February 2015, when my English (and Norwegian) writing skills were pretty bad (due to my dyslexia).

--------------------

And then to my thoughts about the Monarchy/Republic thing:

Why do I prefer an apolitical head of state with a parliamentary system and a prime minister, like we have in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Austria etc?

Well, here are two points that I think will answer it:
1. Yes, we have our problems in the above-mentioned countries as well, but most of these heads of states (especially constitutional monarchs, but also presidents) are unifying - and may have an approval rating at 80/90%.

2. A political head of government is always going to be divisive and almost always have an approval ratings below 50%, and should therefore not be the head of state.

--------------------

Why do I prefer a constitutional apolitical monarchy (with that I mean the European model) instead of an apolitical serimonial president?

Because I think it's the best political system one can have, and it's (IMO) good for democracy. - Here's why:

An apolitical president:
1. He/she will most likely be a politician (not very apolitical).

2. He/she has to be elected (either by the people or the parliament), and that can quickly turn into a divisive, political and (yes) crazy thing.

3. The president (although apolitical on the paper) will probably have many good contacts from a political life that he/she could use to intervene in matters that an apolitical head of state should stay FAR AWAY from.

An constitutional apolitical monarch:
1. He/she don't have the ability to intervene/interfere in political matters (yes, some European constitutional monarchs may have that power on paper, but not in reality, and won't use it anyway).

2. He/she have the opportunity (if they behave properly) to become unifying symbols that unify the nation.
It means that we appear in our thousands (millions in the UK) to celebrate them during jubilees/anniversaries and birthdays - and to honor them when they dies (there are almost somthing magical to it).

3. He/she will have some of the family members there (who in some cases also become unifying figures) to support them in their work.

--------------------

BTW, perhaps the mods could move this and some of the other posts to the ''Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits'' thread.
__________________

__________________
Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys, and girls and boys who love each other. King Harald V speaking in 2016.
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 04-02-2018, 06:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
Well, that post of mine you quoted is from February 2015, when my English (and Norwegian) writing skills were pretty bad (due to my dyslexia).

--------------------

And then to my thoughts about the Monarchy/Republic thing:

Why do I prefer an apolitical head of state with a parliamentary system and a prime minister, like we have in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Austria etc?

Well, here are two points that I think will answer it:
1. Yes, we have our problems in the above-mentioned countries as well, but most of these heads of states (especially constitutional monarchs, but also presidents) are unifying - and may have an approval rating at 80/90%.

2. A political head of government is always going to be divisive and almost always have an approval ratings below 50%, and should therefore not be the head of state.

--------------------

Why do I prefer a constitutional apolitical monarchy (with that I mean the European model) instead of an apolitical serimonial president?

Because I think it's the best political system one can have, and it's (IMO) good for democracy. - Here's why:

An apolitical president:
1. He/she will most likely be a politician (not very apolitical).

2. He/she has to be elected (either by the people or the parliament), and that can quickly turn into a divisive, political and (yes) crazy thing.

3. The president (although apolitical on the paper) will probably have many good contacts from a political life that he/she could use to intervene in matters that an apolitical head of state should stay FAR AWAY from.

An constitutional apolitical monarch:
1. He/she don't have the ability to intervene/interfere in political matters (yes, some European constitutional monarchs may have that power on paper, but not in reality, and won't use it anyway).

2. He/she have the opportunity (if they behave properly) to become unifying symbols that unify the nation.
It means that we appear in our thousands (millions in the UK) to celebrate them during jubilees/anniversaries and birthdays - and to honor them when they dies (there are almost somthing magical to it).

3. He/she will have some of the family members there (who in some cases also become unifying figures on their one) to support them in their work.

--------------------

BTW, perhaps the mods could move this and some of the other posts to
the ''Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits'' thread.
Differences of opinion. America is fine the way it is.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:09 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,648
As you keep raising this question, I decided to address it in this more appropriate general topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Also here: separate the personal popularity of individuals from a desire to keep the current form of state. This is not to be translated one-on-one, as likeability and popularity are entirely different from the question: "Do you like to elect your own head of state?"

But for so far all current monarchies are on the safe side indeed.
I'd say the question is mainly: do you want your fellow countrymen to elect the head of state? Because the 'you' is rather misleading as one person has very little influence :)

In my case: no, seeing how populism is a worldwide phenomenon, I much rather have a non-elected depoliticized head of state than someone (narrowly) winning a popularity contest (who in several cases is despised by the other half of the population) - not a great basis for being a unifying head of state. And in cases where it is less of a popularity contest that is many times because of a layered system - which gives the populace limited influence in who becomes their head of state. So, I am very happy with the European monarchies where the head of state is rather far removed from politics.

In addition, given that it is a hereditary position most monarchs are rather careful not to overstep their boundaries (and in the few cases they do various correction mechanisms are in place) to ensure the longevity of their dynasty.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:15 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
IMO nobility is secondary.

The questions I would ask: Is this family relevant to me?
Do I want this family, headed by X, who is married to Y, to be the foremost representatives of my country?
Do I reflect myself in them, in the sense that their virtues - and flaws - is something I can relate to? In other words: Are they a living embodiment of my people?
Are they a rallying point in times of crisis?
Is there a good reason to abolish an institution, that is a part of my culture, my history, my national identity? (Keep in mind that modern nationalism is only some 200 years old.)
Is my country democratic, despite being a monarchy?
Do I have freedom of speech, despite...?
Do I feel free, despite...?

If I can answer yes to all or most of these questions, the monarchy stays. If for no other reason than why fix something that works?

One of the favorite phrasings especially republican polls use is something like this: In a democracy do you feel the head of state ought to (in principle at least) be elected?
I'm now so old and cynical that while I in principle think all are equal, deep down I don't believe that. And it's sure not how the world is, in my experience. So why pretend?
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitty1224 View Post
I agree but at the same time America is better off not being a monarchy. It’s been like that for 400 years. Now I like Felipe but I am not ignorant to the fact that their monarchy is fragile and will likely go away. Wow some of you guys here just wish every county would be a monarchy. Please live in the real world.



By "America", do you mean the United States ? If so, the US has only been a republic for the last 237 years. Previously, it was a monarchy.


And of course there are countries in the American continent which are still monarchies like Canada for example.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 04-06-2020, 06:00 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19
So what do you royals believe?

I discovered your forum by chance when I googled the word 'monarchist' and saw a meme.


Do you just want kings with ceremonial duties while the country is ruled by democratically elected governments? Or do you believe in a real monarchy, where the king actually is in power?
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 04-06-2020, 06:15 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
Welcome, and congratulations on your first post.

A constitutional monarchy for me, please.
Where the monarch has some, predominantly, formal powers. Like appointing and dismissing governments, signing laws and similar.

A non-democratic system, with a monarch (who is unelected naturally) depends too much on the person.
Some monarchs (dictators, life-time presidents and so on) may be very qualified and their rule may be very beneficial for their countries and people. (To paraphrase Churchill: Democracy is not the best form of government, but the best possible.) Others on the other hand may be inept and a walking disaster for their countries. There are countless historical examples of that.

In fact in Europe in the 1600's where Absolutism became fashionable there were actually some royals who pondered whether Absolutism was really such a good idea in the long run. - After all many top-royals were well-educated, well-informed and genuinely conscientious in regards to the interests of their people. Having total power is also a huge responsibility and no doubt frightening to most.
I imagine most absolute monarchs would in secret often have had self-doubts, unless they were insane or complete morons.
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 04-06-2020, 06:19 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 5,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Fenwick View Post
I discovered your forum by chance when I googled the word 'monarchist' and saw a meme.


Do you just want kings with ceremonial duties while the country is ruled by democratically elected governments? Or do you believe in a real monarchy, where the king actually is in power?
I believe in modern monarchies where kings have ceremonial duties while the country is ruled by democratically elected governments. This is, in my opinion, the most democratic way for a country.
I believe that in this forum most people prefer this kind of monarchical regime than the absolute monarchies.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 04-08-2020, 03:52 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19
So, I take it most of you here support a royal republic. Myself, I'm a true monarchist. I believe in the idea of a constitutional monarchy, a system where a constitution protecting elementary human rights exists but the executive and legislative powers are in the hands of a monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:22 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Fenwick View Post
So, I take it most of you here support a royal republic. Myself, I'm a true monarchist. I believe in the idea of a constitutional monarchy, a system where a constitution protecting elementary human rights exists but the executive and legislative powers are in the hands of a monarch.
Would you care to elaborate?

I have a little hypothetical scenario:
We have a monarch, a king, who at a ripe age took over after a very competent and respected predecessor.
The predecessor had all her life been a living role model in regards to personal integrity, but also in regards to more traditional values say as a spouse.
The new monarch has turned out to be less than interested in pressing political affairs of his country - in fact he spends a great deal of his time abroad, living a jet-set life. Often with a selection of attractive women of a younger model than his wife at home.

His sister however, is of caliber similar to the predecessor. She enjoys the respect and even devotion of the people. She is often out and about on royal duties showing how she cares for people - and when she talks, people listen...

- What are your thoughts regarding that situation?
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:25 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Fenwick View Post
So, I take it most of you here support a royal republic. Myself, I'm a true monarchist. I believe in the idea of a constitutional monarchy, a system where a constitution protecting elementary human rights exists but the executive and legislative powers are in the hands of a monarch.
so no parliament or representation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
W

In fact in Europe in the 1600's where Absolutism became fashionable there were actually some royals who pondered whether Absolutism was really such a good idea in the long run. - After all many top-royals were well-educated, well-informed and genuinely conscientious in regards to the interests of their people. Having total power is also a huge responsibility and no doubt frightening to most.
I imagine most absolute monarchs would in secret often have had self-doubts, unless they were insane or complete morons.
which many of them were....
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:58 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
which many of them were....
Oh yes.

Or they became insane or perhaps rather tyrannical and came to believe in their own ineffability. - A hazard if you surround yourself with sycophants.

Henry VIII was a well-educated, enlightened, with a relatively high moral code (for his time and position) and had seemingly every intention of being a benign king. Many around him had high hopes for his reign.
- And we all know how he turned out... He became a tyrant. Like so many absolute kings throughout history - and dictators too.

But back to monarchies. Some monarchies, like the Aztecs, picked their monachs from a pool of suited candidates. What are your thoughts about that, Hector Fenwick?
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 04-08-2020, 06:41 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Would you care to elaborate?

I have a little hypothetical scenario:
We have a monarch, a king, who at a ripe age took over after a very competent and respected predecessor.
The predecessor had all her life been a living role model in regards to personal integrity, but also in regards to more traditional values say as a spouse.
The new monarch has turned out to be less than interested in pressing political affairs of his country - in fact he spends a great deal of his time abroad, living a jet-set life. Often with a selection of attractive women of a younger model than his wife at home.

His sister however, is of caliber similar to the predecessor. She enjoys the respect and even devotion of the people. She is often out and about on royal duties showing how she cares for people - and when she talks, people listen...

- What are your thoughts regarding that situation?

It seems you have something very certain in mind. Is this some real story?


As for my thoughts about monarchy, I plan to write an extensive article on my blog next Sunday. I'll send you the link.
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 04-08-2020, 06:52 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Fenwick View Post
It seems you have something very certain in mind. Is this some real story?


As for my thoughts about monarchy, I plan to write an extensive article on my blog next Sunday. I'll send you the link.
It is based on a current monarchy, that has quite a few similarities to the type of monarchy you have outlined as what you prefer.
And the example is meant as a problem in a modern context. I.e. a monarch who is not particularly interested in ruling his country and that is a problem if the monarch has direct political power, wouldn't you say?
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:23 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19
If he's not interested in ruling, why not let someone else do it?
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:41 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Fenwick View Post
If he's not interested in ruling, why not let someone else do it?
Oh, he loves being treated like the king, but not doing the work...
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:57 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Fenwick View Post
If he's not interested in ruling, why not let someone else do it?
but that would negate the very idea of an absolute ruling monarchy. If "someone else" can take over, why should absolute power be invested in the monarch?
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 04-09-2020, 11:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 566
The Future will be a Feudal System

The good thing about the future: She is unknown!

And everbody has his/her predictions, which might or might not become true. In a democracy you can vote folks, which made error after error in predicting what might come, simply out of office. And this is a good thing!

Nevertheless I am convinced, we will see in the future a more feudal system. A future with interstellar space travel that is. Because the endevours of building stargates... whatever... terraforming new planets and so on... will lead to a more planned economy, since the whole stuff is very costly. And more planned economies demand a more planned society and this will lead to a more feudal system.

Not to a socialist one: Because socialism has no theory of Credit! But money is mostly credit - so, no wonder socialists are always in dire need of money: They have no ideas how to create credit - Karl Marx wrote nothing about a credit system!

So the future will be more feudal - either a feudalism of the enterprises or of individuals.

I tend to say a feudalism of the indviduals. The future, to pick up from the beginning of my elaborate here, is inherently unknown. There will be struggles about the decisions to make into the unknown future. Human beings, if enraged, tend to even kill each other... - what means warlords will appear. And warlords are already a nobility. I rest my case and hope my predictions were not too boring or unpleasently violent.

I mean, we're close to Easter...
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 04-09-2020, 12:25 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,964
Oh, we don't even have to wait for interstellar travel.

Colonies in the Solar System, once they have become self-sustaining, will become independent - and as such develop their own system of government and legislation suited to their needs and challenges.
Whether some of them will become a monarchy over time, that I doubt very much.
That some of them will eventually become authoritarian, that I find very plausible, however.

Once we hopefully have interstellar travel, any colonies outside the Solar System will become independent from day one.
There can be no such thing as an Earth Empire. It goes against the laws of nature.
The nearest solar system is 4 light years away.
No communication can travel faster than light.
So no urgent messages from a "governor" at Proxima Centauri B can't reach Earth until 4 years later, and a reply with directions can't reach the colony until 8 years after the crisis there began! An hopelessly long response time.

Even it it was possible to travel via wormholes (and I doubt the Universe is that forthcoming) you just close the tube at one end... And the colony has total independence.
And if we go total sci-fi: Try convince people on Earth to fund an insanely expensive expedition to regain control over a colony light-years away, by force.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
queen elizabeth ii, republican, royal


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
Hello, here I am. My interest is the future of monarchies. Mr. Midgard Member Introductions 1 06-29-2008 09:26 PM
Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip: State Visits to Baltic Republics - Oct 16-20, 2006 Skydragon Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 87 10-23-2006 03:13 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes anastasia 2020 archie mountbatten-windsor armstrong-jones background story bridal gown british royal family british royals canada carolin commonwealth countries coronavirus customs dna doll dresses duke of sussex earl of snowdon emperor fantasy movie gustaf vi adolf hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume house of windsor interesting introduction jack brooksbank jewellery jewelry king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal family northern ireland prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess chulabhorn princess dita princess laurentien princess of orange queen consort queen elizabeth ii royal ancestry royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech stuart sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thailand tips tradition united states of america von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×