Elective or Hereditary Monarchy?

[Prince of Bohemia]

First things first, welcome to the forum Prince of Bohemia

I have read your post with great interest, and its a great topic. Here is my two cents worth on the subject of the possibility of a British electoral monarchy (sorry if anyone has already made any of these points)

- Although its hard to guess at times the monarchy is already electoral in that under the current Succession Laws Parliament chooses the monarch and can unchoose the monarch if it is deemed necessary to do so - Edward VIII being the last case of this happening. This has been the case since 1688 when James II was deposed in favour of William of Orange, and indeed it's debatable if it ever was in the first place. Although I'm not sure if its still the case Catholics are excluded from the line of succession along with a raft of other requirements, with the Lords and Commons in effect being a royal electoral college. How does this precisely differ from your proposal?
?

It differs quite a bit. Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, only the descendants of Sophia of Hannover (daughter of Bohemian king btw) can become a monarch, along with the other requirements. And in all practical purposes UK is hereditary monarchy, even if there are some legal technicalities. My proposal would essentially allow any British citizen to become monarch, however they would need to be made a peer of UK first, with peerages beeing non-hereditary.

The Commonwealth realms would be a complication of course, its hard to predict how would all of them react. Some of them, perhaps most, would leave and become either monarchies on their own or republics.

Yes, the hereditary succesion is as fast and easy it gets, thats for sure. And I suppose its a matter of preference. As long as people are ok with having hereditary dynastic head of state, it will work just fine. Once they are not though, but they would still want to call themselves the United Kingdom, my proposal, or something similar, would be a possible alternative.

 

[Muhler]

My own country elected it's kings for 700 years until 1660. But that was at a time when monarchs had power and it was necessary, crucial even to ensure that the line of succession was in place, simply to avoid pretenders and civil war - or invasions.

That's not an issue now, so that argument can't be used in today's world.

I see when I pressed you a bit you went from selecting the monarch from an extended family to basically all members of the House of Lords. - I.e making the whole thing even less relevant to the ordinary people.
How can you possible avoid such an election being mired in infighting, character assassinations, popularity profiling and political deals?
If you leave a choice to a select group of people, who can only and will only choose among themselves, how do you avoid them tending first and foremost to their own interests?
And usually a compromise candidate will be selected. It won't be William, it won't be Lord Drummond, who is the most competent candidate. It will be grey and bland old Lord Egghead from Whereeverhampshire. - Who the rest of the British population couldn't care less about, let alone know.
There are Germans (Who are a pretty enlightened people) who don't even know the name of their own president and more who don't care.

I don't quite agree with you that QEII is bland. She's a very skilled diplomat but first and foremost she has grown into her role, so that today she is the very definition of being a British monarch.
However, her husband and her son, Charles have certainly been controversial and whether you approve of them or not, they don't try and placate everyone - i.e. being bland.
That goes for other monarchs in Europe. King Juan Carlos saved the Spanish democracy, twice. QMII frequently cracks the whip in her New Year speeches, with a viewer rating politicians can only dream about.
King Willem-Alexander is popular and relevant in the Netherlands, not least because of his choice of wife - what if he had been bypassed?
King Phillip has stabilized the Belgian monarchy and perhaps even ensured Belgium as a nation for at least one more generation. Because he is what the two peoples in Belgium can agree on supporting.

No, QEII did not invite in homeless during the financial crisis, nor did any politician I can think of.
However, in times of war, terror or disaster, QEII is the one people listen to, when she makes a comforting speech. It's the BRF people look to after a dreadful event, not so much the politicians.
And after Brexit the national sentiment in Britain has very much gone up, that includes backing the BRF. Including many of those who voted against Brexit.
QEII and her family served in war, they shared a real possibility for being hit by bombs with the people.
Harry served his country in war, earning him respect, even by his detractors.

And I can't recall the last time hundreds of thousands of Britons, let alone foreigners, gathered and celebrated a Prime Minister's birthday or a family event at Number Ten.

Yes, there are people who couldn't care less about their family history, but they probably couldn't care less about their country as well, and certainly wouldn't be bothered serving their country. - They have an option, sign out. Let the next one in line take over.
But they are actually few and far between. Most monarchs try and do their very best, to the best of their abilities. Some with less success than others. Some take everyone by surprise like King Edward who succeeded Queen Victoria. It's doubtful whether he would have been elected, but he actually did a pretty good job once he was on the throne.
There is no guarantee that once you have elected a monarch for life, he won't turn on a plate and become less than interested in the more serious parts of being a monarch. Then what? Elect a new one? - And a new one, until you finally find someone who is suitable? - Fine, but then it is no longer a monarchy.

The difference between the system you are proposing and the system that is in place today is that you elect people for life, in the hope they will do a good job, based on what is basically a qualified guess.
While the existing system groom someone for the role from the moment they are born.

The argument about absolutism doesn't hold water. Absolute absolutism doesn't work, it has never worked for more than at most a few generations. Too much depends on one person.
Which is of course why Absolutism was replaced - or the monarchy booted out.
Instead most monarchs in history have had to work within the framework of a law, the limitations of alliances and political necessities. When they failed to do so, they often ended up dead or in exile.

So we are back to square one, what you are proposing is not a monarchy, but a president with a different title.

 

[Prince of Bohemia]

I see when I pressed you a bit you went from selecting the monarch from an extended family to basically all members of the House of Lords. - I.e making the whole thing even less relevant to the ordinary people.

What are you talking about, electing the extended royal family was never what I was proposing. This is the second sentence of my post:

Most people had an idea that elective monarchy would either mean an internal choosing of an heir by the royal family, or full blown elections of the King by the people. None of these would make much sense imo, the internal choosing doesnt do anything about the inherently unfair system of hereditary royalty,


I specificaly said there that electing the monarch from royal family would be pointless.
My idea was actualy that all peers of UK would be eligible to be elected, not just the members of HoL, but I noticed I didnt specify that in the post.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The last 'elected' monarch of England was Harold II - elected by the Witan in 1066.

Since then it has been by: direct inheritance, right of conquest or government interference.

Why change a system that works?

Why make it more complicated?

Why make it less stable?

 

[Muhler]

What are you talking about, electing the extended royal family was never what I was proposing. This is the second sentence of my post:

Most people had an idea that elective monarchy would either mean an internal choosing of an heir by the royal family, or full blown elections of the King by the people. None of these would make much sense imo, the internal choosing doesnt do anything about the inherently unfair system of hereditary royalty,


I specificaly said there that electing the monarch from royal family would be pointless.
My idea was actualy that all peers of UK would be eligible to be elected, not just the members of HoL, but I noticed I didnt specify that in the post.

Ah, so the House of Lords is to select and chose a suitable candidate among all Britons?

That is the very reason why I'm very much against a republic in my own country, because who are they going to elect? - Most likely an ex-politician, because they have the influence and connections and can bestow favors... I mean come up with the most rewarding arguments for being selected.
So rather than shipping has-beens down to the EU-parliament as we do now, they will be elected king (president) instead. Thank you, but no thank you!
The most natural thing would be to appoint a former diplomat with people skills, right? They are usually out of sight to the general public most of the time.
How do you think the public interest, let alone reverence, would be for the former ambassador to Farawaystan? - Most people probably wouldn't be able to ID him in a line-up, even if he was the only one of ten not dressed as a flamingo.

 

[Prince of Bohemia]

Like I said in one of my previous comments, the peereges would be granted to already accomplished individuals with long history of service to the society, who are beyond needing to be bestowed any favours upon them. And anyway the position of monarch would not be one that would greatly benefited you. You would have to leave your private life behind, as does ERII now, and devote the rest of your life to beeing the head of state. If you still need to make a political career or money, the position of monarch is not going to be that helpfull to you, its a commitment above all else. And I am sure there would be some relevant, competent candidate among the peers, who would do the job just fine.

Yes, the hereditary succesion is as fast and easy as it gets. Its a matter of preference for British people, its their choice. As long as people are ok with having hereditary dynastic head of state, it will work just fine. Once they are not though, but they would still want to call themselves the United Kingdom, my proposal, or something similar, would be a possible alternative.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Also the current queen Elisabeth appears pretty bland to me. I have never seen her do anything out of the ordinary, she is beeign driven arround and waves at people, I watched her speeches, they are all spineless and shallow, written by other people, she probably never said a word of her own to the general public. If thats not bland I dont know what is. People connect with people they like, queen Elisabeth is well liked, people connect with her.

Elizabeth II: (I posted this in another thread, but it's fits here to)

Her Ipsos MORI approval ratings were above 70% from 1992 to 2000 (with the exception of 66% in 1998), over 80% from 2002 to 2016 (sometimes 90%) just 5% dissatisfied in 2016, a YouGov approval rating in 2012 showed 86%.

2. And let's go through the YouGov most admired person in the UK poll:

2014 - The 30 most admired persons in the UK:
1: The Queen with 18,74%
9: William with 2,6%
19: Kate with 0,80%
Harry was not even included in the poll.

2015 - The 15 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 17%
5: Kate with 5,2%

2015 - The 15 most admired Men in the UK:
5: William with 6,5%
8: Harry with 5,9%

2016 - The 30 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 19,5%
7: Kate with 3,6%

2016 - The 30 most admired Men in the UK:
4: Harry with 6,4%
6: William with 5,6%

The Queen was also polled the most admirred woman in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany in the 2016 poll. She is (as experts says) the most popular head of state (many would say person) in the world.

So yes, she is as you wrore ''well liked'', but she is also beloved.

3. QEII is the reigning monarch of 16 countries - including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. She is head of the Commonwealth and is in that capacity figurehead for 2 billion people. She has reigned for 65 years. This makes her the world's most Iconic, famous and well-known head of state (many will say person).

4. She traveled around the UK until she was 86. She used to be driven along the crowds in the Queenmobile (open car) from 1952 to 2012 (did it in 2016 on the occasion of her 90th birthday). Went on several walkabout (walked through the crowds with her smile) from 1970 to 2013. (did it in 2016 on the occasion of 90th birthday). She traveled around the Commonwealth/world from 1952 to 2011 (Italy, France Germany and Malta in 2014/2015). She is known for her kindness and there are so many touching stories about her. She comforts her employees, traumatized aid workers etc.

Our beloved, iconic, remarkable Elizabeth II is the UK and the Commonwealth and she is as Obama said (last year) a jewel to the world.

She is an international icon and the embodiment of royalty. She has dedicated her life to the UK and the Commonwealth, and have spent the last 63 years building relations and friendship between nations as no other. She's was known as the world's top diplomat until at least 2011 (when she almost stopped traveling) She was also with her parents, sister and Winston Churchill a symbol of peace during World War II.

She is as several of the so-called experts said on British/American/Canadian television during her 90th birthday celebrations and Jubilee celebrations in 2012 a symbol of continuity and goodness in the world. And as Baroness Scotland said during an interview: She is kind, caring, warm, forgiving and concerned with poor people, young people and people who are struggling.

Monarchs, Presidents, former Prime Ministers, former employees and family member have said the same and the Queen herself has mentioned it several times in her speeches over the years.

She is simply THE QUEEN and world leders around the world admirer her, and she make me proud to be half-British. We should be proud to live in this admirable lady's reign.

There will be no one like her again, and I agree with Tony Parsons that she will be the last monarch who will be a truly unifying force in our nation, but the monarchy will continue to endure in to future with Charles, William and George.

Prince Charles is not liked at all, people dont connect with him. Doesnt matter if you are royal or not, have you ever seen a rally of american presidents? They are elected and many people connect with them just fine. They might not have 80% approval like Queen Elisabeth, but I am sure Prince Charles wont have either.

Charles: Around 70% approval ratings and 60% thinks he's going to be a good king? Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism. And he ia actually wery good at conecting with people - have you seen him on a walkabout?

The British Monarchy: Record high support in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%. And as I said in my other post, why change a system that has 70-80% (sometimes over 80%) support in the population (that's the case in the UK, Denmark and Norway) and according to many constitutional experts, the best system one can have.

American presidents:

1. The American political system is completely broken.

2. The President of the United States is a politician.

3. They are lucky if they gets 50% approval.

King Willem-Alexander is popular and relevant in the Netherlands, not least because of his choice of wife - what if he had been bypassed?

You and your amazing posts! Agrees that King Willem Alexander is popular, but his 70% approval ratings are far lower than those of Queen Elizabeth II, (80-90%) King Harald V (80-95%), Queen Margrethe II (75-80%), Frederik and Mary (above 80%). Even Haakon and Mette-Marit (who have lost a lot of their popularity) have higher approval ratings than Willem Alexander. The Dutch monarchy has also lost support after he took over, but it now seems to have recovered.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Prince Charles is not liked at all, people dont connect with him.

Did you see the way he and Camilla were mobbed in Italy on his recent tour?

Hardly an example of a person with whom 'people don't connect'?

 

[Muhler]

I hope you are not too discouraged, Prince of Bohemia.

You are after all among hardcore monarchists and it's far from the first time the idea of electing a monarch has come up, but there is a reason why the system with a born heir has been around since basically forever.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Did you see the way he and Camilla were mobbed in Italy on his recent tour?

Hardly an example of a person with whom 'people don't connect'?

I haven't seen so much interest from people for a royal tour since their visit to Sydney in 2015, where they drev bigger crowds that William/Kate and Harry.

But people who don't follow him don't know that. They haven't seen him on his many walkabouts in the UK, on his visits to Canada, Australia and new Zealand.

They see him as a boring, distant and cold man who was mean to Diana.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I specificaly said there that electing the monarch from royal family would be pointless.
My idea was actualy that all peers of UK would be eligible to be elected, not just the members of HoL, but I noticed I didnt specify that in the post.

Taking into consideration the fact that the hereditary peers no longer sit in the HoL after Tony Blairs reforms in 1999, the pool of candidates you are referring to are the life peers, the majority of whom are former MP's who have been "kicked upstairs" so to speak or party donors, or the odd honoured citizen? This is starting to sound very like the method of choosing the president in Italy or Germany...

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

My own country elected it's kings for 700 years until 1660. But that was at a time when monarchs had power and it was necessary, crucial even to ensure that the line of succession was in place, simply to avoid pretenders and civil war - or invasions.

That's not an issue now, so that argument can't be used in today's world.

The argument about absolutism doesn't hold water. Absolute absolutism doesn't work, it has never worked for more than at most a few generations. Too much depends on one person.
Which is of course why Absolutism was replaced - or the monarchy booted out.
Instead most monarchs in history have had to work within the framework of a law, the limitations of alliances and political necessities. When they failed to do so, they often ended up dead or in exile.

So we are back to square one, what you are proposing is not a monarchy, but a president with a different title.

Absolutism in the sense of one person rule never existed. It's a historical myth. Monarchies in the early modern period did take on greater adminsitive responsibilities compared to their medieval counterparts post reformation and post gunpowder warfare but in practice varying forms of aristocratic oligarchy with the monarch holding more or less executive power depending on local conditions was the norm and cooperation with local elites in the absence of professional civil servants and popular sovereignty was a prerequisite for effective enforcement of policy and tax gathering. In other words, the king did what his elites wanted or had to persuade them that reform was in their interestes NOT the other way around. Maintaing the pretence of divine backed royal rule was tied to the need to avoid the awkward question of opening up the policial system, the role of hereditary wealth and inheritance. You may notice that this smoke and mirrors routine became less workable once capitalism and urbanisation take hold. On top of that more often than not the whole old order - Ancien Regime - would either find themselves out of work, or needing to adapt very quickly, not just the monarchs. Transferring your power base from the triad of church, military, loyal peasants and landowners to Financiers, Industrialists, Intellectuals, and the middle class can be done but its very difficult and most monarchies collapsed not from refusing to change but when they tried to make the transition and in effect fell between these two camps.

 

[Al_bina]

Absolutism in the sense of one person rule never existed. It's a historical myth. Monarchies in the early modern period did take on greater adminsitive responsibilities compared to their medieval counterparts post reformation and post gunpowder warfare but in practice varying forms of aristocratic oligarchy with the monarch holding more or less executive power depending on local conditions was the norm and cooperation with local elites in the absence of professional civil servants and popular sovereignty was a prerequisite for effective enforcement of policy and tax gathering. In other words, the king did what his elites wanted or had to persuade them that reform was in their interestes NOT the other way around. Maintaing the pretence of divine backed royal rule was tied to the need to avoid the awkward question of opening up the policial system, the role of hereditary wealth and inheritance. You may notice that this smoke and mirrors routine became less workable once capitalism and urbanisation take hold. On top of that more often than not the whole old order - Ancien Regime - would either find themselves out of work, or needing to adapt very quickly, not just the monarchs. Transferring your power base from the triad of church, military and landowners to Financiers, Industrialists, Intellectuals, and the middle class can be done but its very difficult and most monarchies collapsed not from refusing to change but when they tried to make the transition and in effect fell between these two camps.

You are absolutely correct. A monarch depended/depends on a support of power brokers and courtiers.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The last 'elected' monarch of England was Harold II - elected by the Witan in 1066.

Since then it has been by: direct inheritance, right of conquest or government interference.

Why change a system that works?

Why make it more complicated?

Why make it less stable?

These inquires are excellent statements.
I would like to add that sometimes there is a person who does not seem 100% enthusiastic about royal duties.
For example, did Prince Edward, even before he was The Prince of Wales, really want to eventually succeed to the throne and and become the sovereign?
I am speaking of King Edward VIII.