The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Chit Chat (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/)
-   -   The Value Of Monarchy (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/the-value-of-monarchy-33755.html)

Australian 10-07-2004 12:24 AM

Royal Relevance
 
Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?

wymanda 10-07-2004 12:41 AM

Australian,
I think it depends on each individual country and its people. Mind you, the Monarch's and their families provide a continuity that isn't there with elected presidents/prime ministers ect. Take for example when the American President came to Australia some years ago. He was told that he and his wife would be the guests of Mr Hawke & his lovely wife, Hazel. Instead he arrives to find his host to be Mr Keating & his non Australian wife, Anita.
When visiting Britain a foreign head of state/President knows that his hostess will be HM Queen Elizabeth & her husband the Duke of Edinburgh and he/she won't get any nasty surprises.

gogm 10-07-2004 02:10 AM

European monarchies are symbols of nationality and of social contract. The social contract the men show adherance to is attribted, if my memory is correct, to Chateaubriand (but I won't guarantee it). In that contract, a ruling class was given leisure to train for war and property to raise war horses. The people below got leadership and defense.

Louis XIV breached the contract to avoid a repitition of the Fronde where nobles attempted to overthrow the monarchy. The nobles had no function left so they weren't holding up their end of the contract, but they kept their wealth and privilege. The French people cancelled that contract in 1789.

This is why most royal men are seen in uniform, aboard men of war, or flying Panavia Tornado attack jets. Prince Charles or Prince Felipe is holding up his end of the contract. The European social contracts became very nice in the late 20th century, although they may be becoming more austere due to competition from lower wage nations. The social contract included higher educations for kids who passed the exams, help with medical care, and retirement. For us rugged individualist Americans, these ideas are strange, but they are de rigeur in Europe. The monarch symbolizes nationhood and much more.

I'll get off the soap box after saying something about nationhood. The Dutch set an environmental policy where enterprises were left free to meet the environmental policies set by the country as a whole. That is also strange in America where each group is out for its interest first and where environmental laws are prescriptive and created after bitter political winner-take-all duels and enterprises attempt to duck obligations and deny the obvious. The non-partisan monarch symbolizes a people who can work together — nationhood.

Dennism 10-07-2004 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gogm

This is why most royal men are seen in uniform, aboard men of war, or flying Panavia Tornado attack jets.

Well, this is something I hope will end soon.

wymanda 10-07-2004 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennism
Well, this is something I hope will end soon.

Are you saying that Princes like Charles, Andrew, Frederick & Felipe who have earned rank in the armed forces should be stopped wearing uniform??

Humera 10-07-2004 04:15 AM

Countries like Canada are in a precarious position. We have a queen but ask most Canadians and they'll tell you that she doesnt play any significant, if any, role in their lives. Some will say its nice to maintain traditional ties with the "mother country" others want the link severed. We've even had politicians who refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen while being sworn in as members of parliament. Since there's a large population of Canadians of non-European decent, many of them simply dont feel an attachment to Queen Elizabeth. I was watching a story on the news a couple of months ago about a guy who was raised in Canada but refused to take his citizenship oath because he felt that the British monarchy symbolized exploitation and oppression of millions of people around the world. (you have to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth in your canadian citizenship oath)
Australian you'd probably relate to this. How do most Australians feel about it?

saxon 10-07-2004 07:13 PM

here in Australia its very similar to Canada in that most young people don't feel an attachment to Queen Elizabeth and the Royal Family, although we failed to become a republic in the last referendum that was mainly to do with the model of a republic we were asked to vote on and not an underlaying loyalty to the Monarchy, its only a matter of time before we drop the Monarchy. I think swearing allegiance to the Queen has been taken out of the Australian Citizen Oath, though I could be wrong

Dennism 10-07-2004 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda
Are you saying that Princes like Charles, Andrew, Frederick & Felipe who have earned rank in the armed forces should be stopped wearing uniform??

No, if they want to that is up to them.

Australian 10-07-2004 10:56 PM

Well yes, this issue has been a very popular one. We had a referendum a few years ago and it turned out that most Aussies wanted the Queen. Not because they wanted to keep the monarchy but because of other policies that came along with it. But now, it is safe to say that most Australains want a republic, with a new flag minus the union jack. We are independant in every sense of the word but technically, we arent. Some aussies want to keep their ties with Britain becuase of history, The results are borderline to eachother on whether the monarchy stays or goes. A lot of Aussies(not all) think Queen Elizabeth doesnt play a big role and i guess she doesnt- how can you be head of state of a country that is lightyears away? She gets informed of the goings on but you need to actually be here to understand. It is predicted by a credible source that within the next 5 years, Australia will become a republic.
Most of us want an Aussie to open Olympic games and to be head of state, not a non-aussie. But i also think we should not lose all ties with britian if we do become a republic because of the jistory factor.

Australian 10-07-2004 10:58 PM

i think it could be taken out, saxon, im not sure, but i know that at citizenship ceremonies, the Aussie national anthem is played and so is the British one.

Humera 10-08-2004 03:10 AM

I was actually surprised that Australia still has the union jack on the its flag. Canada got its own flag during the 1960s. It was a huge debate ofcourse between traditionalits who were pro-British and those who wanted a flag that was uniquely Canadian. We got our own anthem long before that. We, however, have had no referendums regarding the monarchy issue. Canada's also in a unique position because of French-Canadians. France and Britain are technically the two "founding nations" of Canada. There are French Canadians who'd like to see the link with the British monarchy severed. When the Queen was last here in 2002, there was a group of French Canadians who showed up to protest her visit.
But it sounds to me like there's a lot of debate taking place in Australia. Nothing so serious is happening here. Perhaps because most Canadians feel that we are a fully independent nation as it is. Ofcourse that doesnt mean that we dont have people who'd like the Queen to go. I dont think, however, that Canada would become a republic if we were to drop the queen. Our style of government is closer to the British Parliamentary system than the American republic. I think most Canadians would like it to stay that way.

Australian 10-09-2004 02:47 AM

Well today Australia votes for the election. If Labor wins, we get rid of John howard and welcome Mark Latham. If Latham wins election, we would most probably say goodby to Queen Elizabeth. We find out results tonight

hillary_nugent 10-09-2004 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxon
here in Australia its very similar to Canada in that most young people don't feel an attachment to Queen Elizabeth and the Royal Family, although we failed to become a republic in the last referendum that was mainly to do with the model of a republic we were asked to vote on and not an underlaying loyalty to the Monarchy, its only a matter of time before we drop the Monarchy. I think swearing allegiance to the Queen has been taken out of the Australian Citizen Oath, though I could be wrong

I took the Australia citizen oath this year and i do not recall anything in reference to the Queen so i think they have indeed removed such allegiance from the oath we pledge before God or whatever religious leader you believe in...Being an Australian i feel absolutely NO attachment ot the Queen sometimes i forget she is head of this country altogether! hahaha

I want to get rid of John Howard! ^___^

Australian 10-09-2004 03:11 AM

Yeah i want Howard out as well, I dont like Latham but he is the lesser of the two evils hahaha

HRH Kanga 10-09-2004 06:32 AM

I would say no, but then again, I'm an American. Therefore, it is hard for me to understand since I don't live in a country that has a monarchy.

However, I do enjoy learning about the royal families of the world.

Sean.~ 10-09-2004 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda
Australian,
I think it depends on each individual country and its people. Mind you, the Monarch's and their families provide a continuity that isn't there with elected presidents/prime ministers ect. Take for example when the American President came to Australia some years ago. He was told that he and his wife would be the guests of Mr Hawke & his lovely wife, Hazel. Instead he arrives to find his host to be Mr Keating & his non Australian wife, Anita.
When visiting Britain a foreign head of state/President knows that his hostess will be HM Queen Elizabeth & her husband the Duke of Edinburgh and he/she won't get any nasty surprises.

Yes, they do provide a continuity, and in more ways than one. More specifically, I think that with increased homogenization in the 'global culture', and the push towards more and more economic, political, and social integration, (eg. European Union), the existing monarchies will become even more relevant. They will serve a huge 'cultural' purpose, and people will help provide people with a sense of national idenity in the age of disappearing borders & chaning identies. A sense of cutural and national continuity, if you will.

wymanda 10-09-2004 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
Yeah i want Howard out as well, I dont like Latham but he is the lesser of the two evils hahaha

Thank the Lord that isn't going to happen! Howard & the Liberal Party returned by an increased majority.

hillary_nugent 10-09-2004 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
Yeah i want Howard out as well, I dont like Latham but he is the lesser of the two evils hahaha

He's going to win...DAMN! Another more years for him to unleash his evilness hahahaha...oh well at least Rove can continue to hassle him to go on his show...hahaha...by the way this may seem irrelevant but does the Queen vote for our prime minister? does that woman do anything related to the election???

gaggleofcrazypeople 10-09-2004 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?

The only thing that matters is that I care about royalty (JK!)

timtonruben359 10-09-2004 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
I was actually surprised that Australia still has the union jack on the its flag. Canada got its own flag during the 1960s. It was a huge debate ofcourse between traditionalits who were pro-British and those who wanted a flag that was uniquely Canadian. We got our own anthem long before that. We, however, have had no referendums regarding the monarchy issue. Canada's also in a unique position because of French-Canadians. France and Britain are technically the two "founding nations" of Canada. There are French Canadians who'd like to see the link with the British monarchy severed. When the Queen was last here in 2002, there was a group of French Canadians who showed up to protest her visit.
But it sounds to me like there's a lot of debate taking place in Australia. Nothing so serious is happening here. Perhaps because most Canadians feel that we are a fully independent nation as it is. Ofcourse that doesnt mean that we dont have people who'd like the Queen to go. I dont think, however, that Canada would become a republic if we were to drop the queen. Our style of government is closer to the British Parliamentary system than the American republic. I think most Canadians would like it to stay that way.

Getting rid of the monarchy here in Canada is really a non-issue at the moment. Most Canadians don't care one way or another. In 2002 polls showed that about 50% of the population wished the monarchy to continue and about 42% wished Canada to become a republic, however, 82% felt that debating the future of the monarchy in Canada was not an important issue.

Some say Canadians still tend to like the pomp and ceremony associated with the monarchy. A few months back there was a scandal in the Governor General's office, the Queen's representative in Canada, when it was discovered that under the present Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, the office's budge rose by 200% since she took office. Many Canadians called for the end of the office, yet there was no real calls to remove the Queen as head of state.

Is the monarchy relevant in Canada today? Probably not. God Save the Queen is only sung on extreemly formal occassions, the Queen has been stripped of most of her official duties, and the Governor General performs almost all of the duties of the Queen. However, the Queen is still well liked in Canada and her visits, which occur every 2 to 5 years, still draw large crowds. The biggest asset of the monarchy in Canada is that it draws attention to one of the few differences between us and the United States.

There is one massive hurdle Canada would have to overcome if it were to become a republic. The Queen's role, as Queen of Canada, and the office of the Governor General has been entrenched in our constitution since 1982. The only way we now can remove the Queen as head of state is if ALL levels of government are in agreement, meaning the Senate, Federal House of Commons and all the provincial governments. Plus they're would have to be a referendum, which are extreemly rare in Canada there has only been 4 I think in the whole history of Canada, where a clear majorty I think about 60% of the total population and 50% of the population of each provonce and territories would have to say yes to removing the Queen even before the provincial governments could begin to propose a bill to remove the monarchy. In Canada that level of agreement is nearly impossible, at least in this day and age.

The other problem is who would come up with a new system that ALL canadians could agree upon? And who would we make the head of state? Some old politician who has outserved his or her usefullness for anything else? One of the reasons our system works so well is that the Head of State and Head of Government are seperate.

wymanda 10-09-2004 11:18 PM

My viewpoint is "If it ain't broken, why fix it"!
All of the talk about a republic is fine but there are a lot of what might seem trivial things to consider if we were to make the change. There would be the cost of redrafting & reprinting legislation, government stationery, etc. The waste would be astronomical when you consider that all existing stationery would have to be shredded and legislation repealed, Parliament (both state & federal) would be tied up for years debating new legislation, etc, etc, etc.
Seems like a very expensive exercise to me when there is basically nothing wrong on a day to day basis with the current system.

Humera 10-10-2004 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timtonruben359
Getting rid of the monarchy here in Canada is really a non-issue at the moment. Most Canadians don't care one way or another. In 2002 polls showed that about 50% of the population wished the monarchy to continue and about 42% wished Canada to become a republic, however, 82% felt that debating the future of the monarchy in Canada was not an important issue.

Some say Canadians still tend to like the pomp and ceremony associated with the monarchy. A few months back there was a scandal in the Governor General's office, the Queen's representative in Canada, when it was discovered that under the present Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, the office's budge rose by 200% since she took office. Many Canadians called for the end of the office, yet there was no real calls to remove the Queen as head of state.

Is the monarchy relevant in Canada today? Probably not. God Save the Queen is only sung on extreemly formal occassions, the Queen has been stripped of most of her official duties, and the Governor General performs almost all of the duties of the Queen. However, the Queen is still well liked in Canada and her visits, which occur every 2 to 5 years, still draw large crowds. The biggest asset of the monarchy in Canada is that it draws attention to one of the few differences between us and the United States.

There is one massive hurdle Canada would have to overcome if it were to become a republic. The Queen's role, as Queen of Canada, and the office of the Governor General has been entrenched in our constitution since 1982. The only way we now can remove the Queen as head of state is if ALL levels of government are in agreement, meaning the Senate, Federal House of Commons and all the provincial governments. Plus they're would have to be a referendum, which are extreemly rare in Canada there has only been 4 I think in the whole history of Canada, where a clear majorty I think about 60% of the total population and 50% of the population of each provonce and territories would have to say yes to removing the Queen even before the provincial governments could begin to propose a bill to remove the monarchy. In Canada that level of agreement is nearly impossible, at least in this day and age.

The other problem is who would come up with a new system that ALL canadians could agree upon? And who would we make the head of state? Some old politician who has outserved his or her usefullness for anything else? One of the reasons our system works so well is that the Head of State and Head of Government are seperate.

Yeah I agree that most Canadians are probably indifferent about the whole royalty issue. Obviously because we feel that we're a fully independent nation. But I do think that we dont exactly need a Queen to differentiate us from Americans. Over the last couple of years we've had an immense opportunity to observe the many differences between Canada and our neighbours to the south. The two countries have different social, political, and religious values. Thats not to say that we dont have much in common ofcourse.
Its funny that you mentioned the Governor General. With the pomp and ceremony that sometimes surrounds her, you'd think she was a queen herself and I dont mean it in a bad way. I dont have anything against her really.

wymanda 10-10-2004 02:45 AM

Canada has a female Govenor General????

You really are ahead of Australia! :cool:

timtonruben359 10-12-2004 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda
Canada has a female Govenor General????

You really are ahead of Australia! :cool:

This actually our second female governor general our first female government was appointed in the late 1980s.

We also have a female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Sancia 10-12-2004 04:49 PM

In my opinion the notion of monarchy is irrelevant. I will explain: I'm fond of all kind of monarchies but I wouldn't live in a monarchist country. for me, the concept of equality is valuable for the head of state: even if the head of state has no power, he must be chosen for his qualities and not for his birth (born in a royal family).
Why am I also interested in royalty? Because I'm fond of genealogy and glittering. But I'm seeing royalty as something superficial, and I don't like the idea of being bound to a kind of life and value by the only fact your ancestors are royal. And I would add that I live in a republican country where most of the royalists support values I can't stand.

Claire 10-13-2004 02:58 PM

Living in South Africa, we do not see royalty that often. But when we do it is an event. I guess you might say that the royals do not need us as much as we need them.

I have attended many functions were people recieve praise for their work, and be the thanks coming from the mayor or president - nothing brightens someones day if they are recieving an award from a royal. Its as if soemone special has touched their lives, even if it was only for a moment, they were part of soemthing bigger than themselves. I suppose it is the fairy tale in us that still places a greater significence on royals than on other people - but I thank them for carrying on their work despite all the crap they have to go through simply to live their lives.

I think the greatest thing about royals is they unite us in ways that treaties and such can never. Just think of the Commonwealth - now there is a bunch of people who would never think of coming together for anything if they were not tied together under the British crown. Call it subjugation, or colonialism, we are united through history to the monarchy. And ties like that can never be removed.

The thing I like most of royals is that everyone appears to have their favourite or the one they relate most to. I once met an elderly gentleman who had specifically asked the British Embassy if Prince Edward could have a walkabout in South Africa, so that he could see him and tell him that he had met his parents and his grandparents and his great grand father when he was in England during the war and to tell him that he was proud of him. I suppose we taken our royals into our heart - they became part of our family.

DKgirls 10-13-2004 04:40 PM

We don't really know if it's that important!! But we like the Royal families a lot more than having for an example presidents!

But we're very happy that we have a Royal family here in Denmark...it's a great thing for the whole country to "admire" and they're a good image of the country in other countries :)

mgrant 10-14-2004 02:21 PM

Wow! This is very interesting. I've learned a lot from this thread.

The only countries where I think royalty is most likely to cease to exsist eventually is Canada and Australia mainly because of geographical location. I've read the discussions from the Canadians and Australians in this thread and it seems that this might happen sooner than later. I can see where some would want to maintain ties to the monarchy and I can also understand why some want to break away. Both are great countries and I hope for the best for both of them.

Meanwhile, here in the good ole USA, we continue to struggle along with one issue after the other but we're up the each and every challenge. I want to make everyone one laugh. There are bumper stickers on some cars that say: "Somewhere in Texas, there is a village missing an idiot." :)

Australian 10-14-2004 11:14 PM

haha thats funny, yes i have also learnt alot in this thread, and i cant believe i started the thread lol, ive never started any thread where it goes to 2 pages lol

Humera 10-15-2004 12:57 AM

I do have to say that when the Queen was in Canada on her Golden Jubilee tour in 2002, she was warmly received. She received flowers from thousands of children all over the country. But I suppose she wouldn't have been received any less warmly had she not been Queen of Canada anymore. The symbolic connection with the monarchy would still be there. It is said that the late Queen Mother had a special fondness for Canada and she must've made dozens of visits here. She also received very warm welcomes from most people here. Aside from these occasional visits though, the people of Canada have very little contact with the monarchy.

Australian 10-15-2004 01:11 AM

Yes that is the same here in Australia. But i think that the only reason why she gets a good reception when she comes is not because we have close feelings for the Queen but simply because she is famous and simply because she is a queen. Its the same when celebrities come, its not because we feel a closeness to them, its just that they are famous.

Humera 10-15-2004 01:13 AM

5 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda
Canada has a female Govenor General????

You really are ahead of Australia! :cool:

Some pictures of Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, she was born in Hong Kong

1. October 5, 2004. With Prime Minister Paul Martin
2. Canada Day, July 1, 2004
3. Canada Day, July 1, 2003
4. With Queen Elizabeth in Ottawa, October 15, 2002
5. With the Late Queen Mother at Clarence House in London October 31, 2000

Australian 10-15-2004 01:26 AM

Queen visiting Australia
https://www.cultureandrecreation.gov....ecorations.jpgCityhttps://www.cultureandrecreation.gov....yingdoctor.jpgAlice Springs

Australian 10-15-2004 01:33 AM

that was when she came ages ago, i think she came recently,im not sure. Diana and charles came after their wedding to Australia.

Australian 10-15-2004 01:41 AM

Queen Elizabeth last came to Australia in 2002 for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. I'll stop posting now, im annoying i know haha

Humera 10-15-2004 02:13 AM

Did she not come to Australia for her Golden Jubilee tour? That was in 2002

Australian 10-15-2004 02:19 AM

Yes she did come for the golden jubilee coming to think of it. This is what she said in Australia on her last day:





The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are due back in Britain on Monday morning, having visited Jamaica, New Zealand and Australia in their Commonwealth tour.

Speaking to the crowds at the People's Reception in Roma Street Parkland, the Queen said: "On this last day of my visit to Australia, I would like to express my gratitude to you all for the warmth of the welcome Prince Philip and I have received at every stage.

"Although the visit has been brief, it has provided both Prince Philip and I with the chance to witness at first hand the way in which Australia is facing up to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. "Once again we have both been struck by both the diversity as well as the dynamism of Australia, and the vigour and humour of Australians everywhere.

bad_barbarella 10-15-2004 02:29 AM

im from australia and would be so sad if we ever lost our link with the royals... its herratige its important to keep what ppl have fought for in the past

Humera 10-15-2004 05:34 AM

Yes tradition is important, but where do you draw the line?
Canada has fought alongside Britain during the two world wars and before, but it wasn't out of love for the British monarchy. It was because Canada was a Dominion until the 1930s. Canadians had to go fight for Britian. Thousands of Indians fought for Britian as well, but hardly out of love for the empire.
I dont know about Australia but there have been conflicts like the Boer War during which many Canadians exressed an unwillingness to fight an unjust colonial war for the British.
I personally am somewhat indifferent about the monarchy issue but I do think that clinging to the monarchy just for the sake of "tradition" isnt a very good reason, especially in a country where not everybody agrees whether that tradition is worth keeping or celebrating. Im sure that Canadians of British decent will have a somewhat different view of the monarchy than those that come from lands that have experienced oppression and exploitation under the British Empire.

hillary_nugent 10-15-2004 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bad_barbarella
im from australia and would be so sad if we ever lost our link with the royals... its herratige its important to keep what ppl have fought for in the past

this is true...its sad because a majority of the time people even forget that Australia even has a Queen!!! If you ask people who's head of Australia they immediately reply Johnny Howard [will u please go on rove!]...

Australian 10-15-2004 08:47 AM

Oh well, even if australia gets rid of the monarchy it wouldnt make much difference to how we are now i guess. Im not sure but personally i would love to see Australia become a republic.

Josefine 03-24-2005 03:20 AM

For me as a swede the monarchy is part of our history and for me that is importand
i also think the royal family is ambasedors for sweden
just see how victorias role in australia was when she was there in march

Australian 03-24-2005 06:44 AM

Yes Josephine, i agree, i started this thread some time ago and have since changed my mind about royalty, i noew think that royalty is important. Victoria confirmed my belief when she visited us here in Australia. I just dont agree with foreign monarchies governing other countries like Australia, thats all.

Warren 03-24-2005 07:47 AM

The Queen and Australia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
I just dont agree with foreign monarchies governing other countries like Australia.

The Queen doesn't govern Australia. Her powers are vested in the Governor-General and the State Governors. Like her, they act on the advice of the elected government of the day.

Their importance in the Constitutions (Federal and State) is that the G-G and Governors have the "reserve powers" of the Crown. This means that no politician can ever achieve absolute power; it is the safeguard.

For better or worse the G-G in 1975 exercised this power to dismiss the elected government of the day as the only way (as he saw it) of resolving a political impasse. At the subsequent federal election the former government was overwhelmingly defeated. In effect, the G-G forced an election so that the popular will of the electorate could be expressed.

Apparently Buckingham Palace was aghast (the Queen had not been consulted by the G-G), but the point is that the G-G, by using the reserve powers of the Crown, was able to dismiss a government and resolve a political crisis.

The republic referendum in 1999 failed because there was no agreement on 1) how to elect or appoint a proposed president; and 2) what to do with the reserve powers. I suppose many people thought that to give a hack former politician who became president such sweeping (emergency) powers was not such a good idea.

As a general rule the G-G and State Governors do not have political backgrounds (or ambitions) and remain above the political fray.

The third reason why the referendum failed (not a single state of Australia voted in favour of the republican proposal) is because we have a stable political system and Australians do not like major change, especially when there is no pressing need, and even more so when the alternative has not been spelled out.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution defines the Federal Parliament as consisting of the Queen [then Queen Victoria], a Senate, and a House of Representatives. So even though the reigning monarch does not play a role in Australia's affairs, the G-G and Governors, as representative of the Sovereign, have a vital constitutional role to play.
.

Piewi 03-24-2005 12:13 PM

I learn a lot with this thread! i didnīt know that Autralia and canada have monarchies!;)

Well, Iīm from a American country, Argentina, and we are far from royals (and all the wold). I think most of people in my country donīt know the name of one royal and we see them as a show.I discover 1 year ago that spain still have a mornachy! And netherlands royalty is faumous since Maxima married Willem.
Almost 200 years ago that we are independient .
Royalty of Spain made disasters with our native people when they discover America (1492), they murder, took in ambitius people who only want money, power and gold :mad: , and tried to change our religion with bad ideas . They only think in them and the best for Spain and left us to our destinity. Well after 300 of reing all the countries in America got independient.(araund 1810)

For me monarchy is irrelevant, they are famous people but I think that they arenīt soo important. And remember Iīm from a country that is a republic, so I have a diferent history and different thouhts. Maybe a lot of people in Arg. think that is imposible that some countries still have a monarchy and these live in palace and have a lot of money, but we have politics that rob a lot of money and now we are a poor contry (50% of our poblation is poor) so I think that is a cultural difference.:rolleyes:


Sorry for my bad english:o

simplicity8318 03-24-2005 04:48 PM

As a Canadian, I would say that most people I know are indifferent about the Monarchy.

Yes, although the monarchy costs us financially (spendings of Governer General Adrienne Clarkson), most seem to forget the War of 1812. Without British help, Canada could have very well been taken over by the US and today, we wouldn't be Canadians but Americans. However, theres the two World Wars where we were obligated to fight for Britain.

In light of recent British royal events, I don't think many Canadians would be too happy in having 'Queen'/'Princess Consort' Camilla as part of the monarchy. Prince Charles himself isn't even very popular in Canada. Polls suggest QEII is the most favourite member of the royal family taking up 28% of the votes, William with 22%. Charles with only 9%. The most interesting stat is that 20% of Canadians dont like any of members of the royal family.

Nevertheless, It'll be interesting to see how the commonwealth reacts to 'King' Charles and 'Queen' Camilla.

(Personally, I would rather see Canada as a republic after the reign of QEII.)

Josefine 03-28-2005 06:01 AM

i can understand that cuntries like canada and australia can feel that the monarchy do not fit in due to that thier royal family do not live in thier country iand i guess do not promote thir imaage and produkts like the royal families of sweden denmark and norway and many other royal family
if the royal family would move to canada or australia and promote that country would that be a difference?

Australian 03-28-2005 07:38 AM

Josephine

I believe that if Australia had its OWN monarchy, made up of Australians, then it would be necessary and beneficial regarding promotions.

simplicity8318 03-28-2005 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josefine
i can understand that cuntries like canada and australia can feel that the monarchy do not fit in due to that thier royal family do not live in thier country iand i guess do not promote thir imaage and produkts like the royal families of sweden denmark and norway and many other royal family
if the royal family would move to canada or australia and promote that country would that be a difference?

I think Canadians are so use to their current monarchy being pretty much non-existent that another monarchy would be hard to implement. (Unless you make up the monarchy using famous hockey players ;) ).

I think that if the queen were to visit some of the commonwealth countries more often, it wouldn't hurt.

Humera 03-28-2005 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piewi
I learn a lot with this thread! i didnīt know that Autralia and canada have monarchies!;)

Well, Iīm from a American country, Argentina, and we are far from royals (and all the wold). I think most of people in my country donīt know the name of one royal and we see them as a show.I discover 1 year ago that spain still have a mornachy! And netherlands royalty is faumous since Maxima married Willem.
Almost 200 years ago that we are independient .
Royalty of Spain made disasters with our native people when they discover America (1492), they murder, took in ambitius people who only want money, power and gold :mad: , and tried to change our religion with bad ideas . They only think in them and the best for Spain and left us to our destinity. Well after 300 of reing all the countries in America got independient.(araund 1810)

For me monarchy is irrelevant, they are famous people but I think that they arenīt soo important. And remember Iīm from a country that is a republic, so I have a diferent history and different thouhts. Maybe a lot of people in Arg. think that is imposible that some countries still have a monarchy and these live in palace and have a lot of money, but we have politics that rob a lot of money and now we are a poor contry (50% of our poblation is poor) so I think that is a cultural difference.:rolleyes:


Sorry for my bad english:o

I think you've made a great point Piewi. I completely understand where you're coming from. Though I am Canadian, my background is Pakistani. I have, for the past 6-7 months been learning the history of the region of my origin and I can tell you that what you've attributed to Spain isn't much different from what the British did in the Indian subcontinent or what other imperial European powers did elsewhere in Asia, Africa, South America and even to the native populations of North America. It was exploitation and suppression under the veil of imperialism and "civilization".
Many European countries have been guilty of the same thing. As a result of which the damage suffered by the colonized populations has been irreversible and the effects of which can be seen even today.
So im sure some people will excuse me for not have a special attachment to the Queen. That is not to say ofcourse that I dislike her or any other European monarch. They're not responsible for what their ancestors did.
Like I said, my point-of-view is different from what a European's might be, or perhaps even that of a Canadian of European origin.
But ofcourse I dont expect the rest of Canada to share my opinion. Many of them do though, since this is a country of immigrants and South Asians are increasingly the fastest growing segment of the immigrant population here. Who knows, a time may come when Queen Elizabeth will no longer be Queen of Canada. Right now though, Canadians are indifferent about the issue. It is way down the bottom of our priority list.

Piewi 03-29-2005 03:50 PM

Quote:

I think you've made a great point Piewi
Thank you Humera. Im glad that you understand me so well.
As you said , not only in America royals did desasters, but of course monarchs of our times are not guilty of things that they ancestors did. Well, my history teacher told me (and my classmates) that English royals made a different thing with native people in northAmerica, they took off of their lands, but Spanish people made indians hard work and that was really bad īcause they didnīt know how to do that and a lot them died

Well i forgot something i post it later.

semisquare 03-29-2005 04:59 PM

its six eggs in one hand and half a dozen in the other, royal families bring in a lot of money from people traveling to see different events. but on the other hand they fall short of setting a good example of how families should act

Idriel 07-05-2005 09:29 PM

What Is the Point of Monarchy?
 
Hello, I would like to hear your opinions about the sense and utility of a monarchy.
What do you think monarchs should do/be/represent: national symbols, moral models, activists for good causes, tourist attractions, political figures, sources of entertainment, etc...?
What monarch(s) in your opinion represent best the ideal of monarchy?
Are monarchies relevant to a modern world?

Piewi 07-05-2005 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Hello, I would like to hear your opinions about the sense and utility of a monarchy.
What do you think monarchs should do/be/represent: national symbols, moral models, activists for good causes, tourist attractions, political figures, sources of entertainment, etc...?
What monarch(s) in your opinion represent best the ideal of monarchy?
Are monarchies relevant to a modern world?

Iīm against monachy, so for me they arenīt relevant, i mean they donīt lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).
They represent nacional symbols and their countries ( some of them, for example last year i discovered that monarchies exist, i only knew British royals-Diana- and Caroline of Monaco. And i was shocked to knew that Spain still have a monarchy! They were/are a famous country, how i didnīt know that they had royals?:eek: )
They also are huge sources of entertaiment.
For me royals have to help poor people on their countries(and others), do carithy, be in hospitals , create new schools...They have to use the love and money that they get in relevant things.

grecka 07-05-2005 10:23 PM

The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.

EmpressRouge 07-05-2005 10:41 PM

In times of crisis, the monarchy can be seen as a bonding national force that is above politics, example: King George VI and the British royals during WWII. But today, they are mostly for entertainment, tradition, and pomp. However there are those who argue that the money it costs a country to keep a monarchy is not as wasteful as it may seem. Countries w/o a royal family must still hold state galas, entertain politicians, and live and dress similarly to what royals do. The cost of doing this is about same, if not more, than what a royal family would cost. However, in these countries, the money spent is spread out throughout various gov't agencies so it doesn't LOOK like as much as what a monarchy would cost. Personally, I have not researched/kept track of spending, but this is another way of looking at things.

Humera 07-05-2005 10:43 PM

Im not a monarchist. But from the various opinions I've heard on this subject, monarchies today can also do a lot of good. Not having a King or Queen isnt reason enough to be proud. Im sure there are many people on this board who live in monarchies and are just as proud of their country and their monarch.

Toledo 07-05-2005 11:09 PM

What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums? :mad:

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge
In times of crisis, the monarchy can be seen as a bonding national force that is above politics, example: King George VI and the British royals during WWII. But today, they are mostly for entertainment, tradition, and pomp. However there are those who argue that the money it costs a country to keep a monarchy is not as wasteful as it may seem. Countries w/o a royal family must still hold state galas, entertain politicians, and live and dress similarly to what royals do. The cost of doing this is about same, if not more, than what a royal family would cost. However, in these countries, the money spent is spread out throughout various gov't agencies so it doesn't LOOK like as much as what a monarchy would cost. Personally, I have not researched/kept track of spending, but this is another way of looking at things.

Hi Empress,

I agree with what you have written, however, comparatively monarchies do tend to cost more than republics of similar size -- but not always. It depends on the type of republic, who's running it, etc. However, if the citizens feel that they are getting value for money,then that's all that matters.

Personally, I'm not always a monarchist. Like everything It depends on the situation. Every country is different, and has its own needs, etc. I'm totally against dictatorships posing as monarchies (Saudi, Jordan, etc.). That being said, a crown, can however, be a unifying force in divisive, multi-ethnic countries and confederate countries (e.g. Belgium, Malaysia, etc.). What's more, in my opinion, rather than becoming anachronisms in the European (and some non-European) countries in which they exist, in my opinion I think they will become even more important institutions. More specifically, with increased regional and international integration, the erosion of national borders, the spread of a global (ie American) consumer culture, and the compression of space and time, monarchies will provide their citizenry with a sense of national identity, continuity, and traditon -- a pillar of stability if you will, in a fast changing, hyper, and often politically and economically tumultuous world.

Lena 07-06-2005 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums? :mad:

I followed a bit the discussion on this other board...and I really hope, we can avoid such kind of discussion. We had a similar discussion before...and then people behaved. So I want to ask you in advance to do the same again. Please donīt get too much into politics, and please accept other opinions.

Lena, as moderator

Iain 07-06-2005 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grecka
The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.

Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

ElisaR 07-06-2005 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I agree. :) And they are also a simbol of unity and continuity.

Mascha 07-06-2005 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?:confused:

Idriel 07-06-2005 07:35 AM

Thank you for your answers, great variety of ideas!

Toledo, I think you misinterpereted my thread. As you can see from the answers posted and from various practical examples, there are several way of beeing a monarch (Monaco's ruler has a completely different role than Spain's monarch for example). This thread is about how a monarchy should be ruled, and what monarch is the closest to a perfect ruler.
Of course, I opened the way to some discussions about the principle of monarchy itself as I thought it would enrich the conversation. I think I was right (see post #9).
If we are all adults, there is no reason for a war to begin :) .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums? :mad:


Sean.~ 07-06-2005 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mascha
I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?:confused:

Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. :)) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.

Idriel 07-06-2005 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piewi
Iīm against monachy, so for me they arenīt relevant, i mean they donīt lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).

That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.

I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Finally, the current occupant of the oval office is only one example. One can not judge all presidents of all countries by his record. There have been, and continue to be, numerous presidents and prime ministers who have united their countries, just as there have been (and continue to be) monarchs who bring havoc to their countries.

Idriel 07-06-2005 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?

Australian 07-06-2005 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mascha
I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?:confused:

I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

ElisaR 07-06-2005 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.

And they also marry commoners. :)

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?

Completely? No -- at least not at first, however, they will be mitigated (providing that the monarchies in question are replaced by a democratic system). And, for the record, I'm not just referring financially equality, but things like nepotism, class inequality, inequality based on ethnicity,gender inequality, etc.

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

My point exactly.

Idriel 07-06-2005 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
Completely? No -- at least not at first, however, they will be mitigated (providing that the monarchies in question are replaced by a democratic system). And, for the record, I'm not just referring financially equality, but things like nepotism, class inequality, inequality based on ethnicity,gender inequality, etc.

But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.

Alexandria 07-06-2005 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqueline28
Exactly I agree with you.This is such a useless post.It is so tired and old.Republicans like republics.And Monarchists like Monarchies PERIOD Let's just leave it to that.This kind of post has caused alot of ruckus in other boards it was shocking.Please give it a rest.

As expressed very well by my fellow TRF Team Member Lena in post #8, I think that this is an interesting discussion, and so long as members can behave civily and respectfully (which has been the case so far), then it should continue to exist as a thread here.

While it seems that others have followed a similar line of discussion at another royal discussion forum, please note that not all of us are members of this other forum, or have the time to read forums other than this one (as I do not). So for me, all this is a new and interesting discussion.

If you participated or were witness to the same discussion at another forum, and do not care for a re-hashing of the same discussion here, then please just disregard this thread but please don't tell others that it's a waste of time. For someone like me for whom it is all a fresh question, it is not a waste of my time.

Also, while members of this forum are likely members of other forums, too, as all the royal discussion forums are run differently with different rules and expectations, there is no reason to think that the same (apparent) nasty end of a similar discussion at the other forum will take place here.

Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator

Mascha 07-06-2005 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. :)) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.

You're both right, I didn't look at it that way SORRY!!:o :o :o

Humera 07-06-2005 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.

Iran did not become a tyranny because the Shah left. The revolution itself had a lot to do with how much of a tyrant the Shah was himself. And because he was installed by the US, not chosen by his people.

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.

I think you are misunderstanding my post (s). Democracy and tyrnany both have to do with strucures of governance and regimes (the extent may vary). My point was that, although *some* countries with monarchies are egalitarian democracies, not all are -- particularly where the monarchy/monarch is vested with a lot of power (this is true for other kinds of authoritarian regimes as well, of course). Thus we should be cognizant of that instead of portraying all monarchies as beacons of egalitarianism.

Moreover, many of the countries that were previouly cited as egalitarian, democratic monarchies would remain egalitarian and democratic even if the monarchies in those countries were abolished because of the social ethos and dominant political cultures of those countries -- both of which have been developed over a long period of time. For instance, it has hard to see Sweden (where the monarch has little political power to begin with) becoming a tyranny if the monarchy were abolished. These countries are egalitarian democracies because that's what the people want.

Spain did become a democracy after the demise of the Franco regime, yes. That democracy has only recently been consolidated. But democracy isn't solely attributable to Juan Carlos. There had to be want and will from the populace as well to sustain the changes. Moreover, there were many abuses under the monarchy prior to Franco. One must be cognizant of that as well.

With respect to the Shah, well, as far as history is concerned, he was a tyrant. If you are familiar with Iranian/Middle Eastern history, you will know that Iran was a fledgling democracy under Mossadq in the 1950s before the autocratic regime of the Shah was installed by the West. Thus a fledgling, grass roots democracy was replaced with an autocracy, which in turn was replaced by a theocracy because of the abuses of the former.

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mascha
You're both right, I didn't look at it that way SORRY!!:o :o :o


No reason to be sorry! We're all here to share our views & discuss. :)

Idriel 07-06-2005 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
Iran did not become a tyranny because the Shah left. The revolution itself had a lot to do with how much of a tyrant the Shah was himself. And because he was installed by the US, not chosen by his people.

Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...

Idriel 07-06-2005 05:26 PM

thankx for answers Sean

Elspeth 07-06-2005 05:50 PM

I don't know if it's a coincidence, but usually over half the countries at the top of the United Nations list of countries with the highest quality of life are constitutional monarchies.

I think a constitutional monarchy, as long as the monarch is scrupulously fair about his/her approach to politics, has the great advantage of keeping party politicians out of the position of head of state. It can be very tempting for a party politician to use the position of president to try and merge the good of the party with the good of the country and to suggest that people who don't support his party aren't patriots. It's especially the case in times of war or other national crisis. This has been going on for some years in the United States, and IMO it's unhealthy, not to say at times downright frightening.

If Tony Blair had reacted to the 9/11 attacks with the suggestion that he embodied the nation and that criticising the policies of the Labour party was tantamount to treason, he'd have been a national laughing stock - in much the same way that Margaret Thatcher became a laughing stock with her delusions of grandeur about being a national institution and the "we are a grandmother" announcement. The presence of a monarch who isn't an elected or appointed party politician does serve to remind people that politicians are not statesmen, they're representatives of their parties.

As far as the notion expressed earlier that the absence of a monarch has allowed the USA to avoid having an arrogant and elitist leader, I will simply confess to being utterly gobsmacked.

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...

Yeah, there are a few threads. I would do a search using the words Shah, Mossadq, and all the Shah's Men. The latter is the title of an excellent scholarly book that was published a couple of years ago. If you are interested in the topic I would highly suggest it.

Sean

Humera 07-06-2005 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...

I understand the reason behind your point of view, and I have no doubt that the Shah's family members have a very different opinion of him, isnt that to be expected? But I wouldnt rely on them for the facts or for impartiality. Its all well and good that the former empress Farah goes around the world talking of democracy. But she doesnt talk about how autocratic her own husband's regime was. Infact Iran today would be freer and more open society had the Shah not be installed in the first place and had democracy been allowed to flourish.

Sean.~ 07-06-2005 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I don't know if it's a coincidence, but usually over half the countries at the top of the United Nations list of countries with the highest quality of life are constitutional monarchies.

I think a constitutional monarchy, as long as the monarch is scrupulously fair about his/her approach to politics, has the great advantage of keeping party politicians out of the position of head of state. It can be very tempting for a party politician to use the position of president to try and merge the good of the party with the good of the country and to suggest that people who don't support his party aren't patriots. It's especially the case in times of war or other national crisis. This has been going on for some years in the United States, and IMO it's unhealthy, not to say at times downright frightening.

If Tony Blair had reacted to the 9/11 attacks with the suggestion that he embodied the nation and that criticising the policies of the Labour party was tantamount to treason, he'd have been a national laughing stock - in much the same way that Margaret Thatcher became a laughing stock with her delusions of grandeur about being a national institution and the "we are a grandmother" announcement. The presence of a monarch who isn't an elected or appointed party politician does serve to remind people that politicians are not statesmen, they're representatives of their parties.

As far as the notion expressed earlier that the absence of a monarch has allowed the USA to avoid having an arrogant and elitist leader, I will simply confess to being utterly gobsmacked.

I must have missed that one.

A monarchy can be a good thing as long as there are checks and balances, and providing that's what the people want. It is when there aren't checks and balances that problems start to arise (as with any system). With respect to the UN quality of life list, rather than their status as constitutional monarchies, one must (also) take other factors into consideration such as that these are rich, industrialized Western European countries whose development wasn't stymied by colonialism, occupation, and suzernaity. Moreover, they set the terms of trade and dominate international instiutions, hold patents, and have been in exisitice as states far longer than much of the non-Western (a few decades) and East

Athena 07-06-2005 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
I recall recently this questioncaused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni

Oh dear, please don't mention those people, that place, or their members in this pleasent forum.


*Back on topic, I think having a monarchy is a great thing for a country that still has one. It's a tradition that brings pride and untiy to that nation and perhaps for some it may have a nationalistic pride as well.

It also brings in a lot of tourist money such as Britain; so why get rid of a good thing?:)

jacqueline28 07-06-2005 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athena
Oh dear, please don't mention those people, that place, or their members in this pleasent forum.


*Back on topic, I think having a monarchy is a great thing for a country that still has one. It's a tradition that brings pride and untiy to that nation and perhaps for some it may have a nationalistic pride as well.

It also brings in a lot of tourist money such as Britain; so why get rid of a good thing?:)

I like what you wrote,nicely said about the monarchy part.:)

Idriel 07-06-2005 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think a constitutional monarchy, as long as the monarch is scrupulously fair about his/her approach to politics, has the great advantage of keeping party politicians out of the position of head of state.

I totally agree. I see the political neutrality of European monarchs (Monaco and Liechtensein taken aside) as their best advantage. I think it's good for people to have State figures regularly keeping touch with them (official engagements) for reasons others than the next election. That neutrality create an healthy link between the Power (or its symbol) and the people. For that reason, the monarch I admire most is Juan Carlos of Spain who made a strong political statement at the beginning of his reign but then had the courage to let place to elected leaders and since then has been a neutral and charismatic figure.

jacqueline28 07-06-2005 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
I totally agree. I see the political neutrality of European monarchs (Monaco and Liechtensein taken aside) as their best advantage. I think it's good for people to have State figures regularly keeping touch with them (official engagements) for reasons others than the next election. That neutrality create an healthy link between the Power (or its symbol) and the people. For that reason, the monarch I admire most is Juan Carlos of Spain who made a strong political statement at the beginning of his reign but then had the courage to let place to elected leaders and since then has been a neutral and charismatic figure.

Totally agree, love what you wrote too.

Toledo 07-07-2005 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Thank you for your answers, great variety of ideas!

Toledo, I think you misinterpereted my thread. As you can see from the answers posted and from various practical examples, there are several way of beeing a monarch (Monaco's ruler has a completely different role than Spain's monarch for example). This thread is about how a monarchy should be ruled, and what monarch is the closest to a perfect ruler.
Of course, I opened the way to some discussions about the principle of monarchy itself as I thought it would enrich the conversation. I think I was right (see post #9).
If we are all adults, there is no reason for a war to begin :) .

Thanks for the explanation. :)
I have to admit that when I read the topic's title I jumped because of the negativity I read in that other Forum, mainly, people involving current politics and the always present undercover trolls nagging around the more serious members. When I saw the headline here I thought, oh no! not here! :eek:

My five cents of opinion, Monarchy and elected officials are not the same thing, never were and never will be. A Monarch represents tradition, the sense of common history embodied in one family that represents all the families in one country. Let me explain, you know when there is a pageant and a lady is selected for the Miss Universe or Miss World competition? Well, she is the pride of her nation, she is the face of her country, at least for one year. A Monarch, at a greater time scale than spans centuries, is just that: the embodiment of a country's common history. The should be always above politics because when they cross that line, like in the current crisis in Swaziland, the whole system collapses like a house of cards.

Idriel 07-07-2005 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
Thanks for the explanation. :)
I have to admit that when I read the topic's title I jumped because of the negativity I read in that other Forum, mainly, people involving current politics and the always present undercover trolls nagging around the more serious members.

:D You not not hold them in your heart, do you?

Quote:

A Monarch represents tradition, the sense of common history embodied in one family that represents all the families in one country.
Do you think that because of this symbolic role, monarch should not be allowed failures (like divorces, affairs and other scandals) or do you think that they must be allowed to live the ups and downs of their lives just like other human beings?

BTW, thankx for participating and welcome on this peaceful tread :D

Toledo 07-07-2005 02:31 PM

Your Welcome. :)

If it's strickly symbolic, to a point they are not allowed to have human faults, then you have something similar to the Japanese Imperial Family and their strict code of conduct controlled by the Court. And you don't want that because a tragic casualty of that system has been the unfortunate Crown Princess Masako. But if they go in the opposite direction, a libertine life of aristocrartic bed hoping and double standards masked by snobbery, then you got most of the the children of poor Queen Elizabeth II and their Royal antics. For example, I did not know until recently that Camilla's Ex husband was Princess Anne's Ex boyfriend. And, there is the even more extreme scenario: Monaco's Grimaldis.

There has to be a middle point where the Heirs to any throne had to be made aware that they are held at higher standards, and if they don't like it they can step down. But the attitude of any Royal child depends, like in everyone's life, on parenting skills. Children are not supposed to raise themselves, nor live in an isolated bubble away from the real world. The same applies to the children of elected officials, they know their public conduct reflects on their parents.
And on divorce, every case has a different reason, but if they married for love they both should make an effort to get past their obstacles since there is so much at stake. And, if they can't, at least don't leave the marriage with hatred for the other person when there are kids in common. Parents should make the best effort to conduct themselves in a way it won't affect the kids.

Toledo 07-07-2005 02:40 PM

On trolls, no, I don't feed them. But sometimes they are tricky to spot. As in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, they do evolve to fit into an enviroment before they turn into pests. But plain indiferrence is the best way to scare them off, Trolls get tired when they can't find someone that responds their hit-and-run games. ;)

Idriel 07-07-2005 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
Your Welcome. :)

If it's strickly symbolic, to a point they are not allowed to have human faults, then you have something similar to the Japanese Imperial Family and their strict code of conduct controlled by the Court. And you don't want that because a tragic casualty of that system has been the unfortunate Crown Princess Masako. But if they go in the opposite direction, a libertine life of aristocrartic bed hoping and double standards masked by snobbery, then you got most of the the children of poor Queen Elizabeth II and their Royal antics. For example, I did not know until recently that Camilla's Ex husband was Princess Anne's Ex boyfriend. And, there is the even more extreme scenario: Monaco's Grimaldis.

There has to be a middle point where the Heirs to any throne had to be made aware that they are held at higher standards, and if they don't like it they can step down. But the attitude of any Royal child depends, like in everyone's life, on parenting skills. Children are not supposed to raise themselves, nor live in an isolated bubble away from the real world. The same applies to the children of elected officials, they know their public conduct reflects on their parents.
And on divorce, every case has a different reason, but if they married for love they both should make an effort to get past their obstacles since there is so much at stake. And, if they can't, at least don't leave the marriage with hatred for the other person when there are kids in common. Parents should make the best effort to conduct themselves in a way it won't affect the kids.

I agree with most of your post. Particularly on the part about the divorce. i think for example the examplary way Alexandra and Joachim handle their divorce (no kiss and tell to the press, maximum protection of their kids) is very royal and does not cause troubles to the danish RF. As opposed to the disastrous war of the Whales who still affect BRF years after Diana's death.

Von Schlesian 07-10-2005 01:31 AM

I live in a Constitutional Monarchy and can without doubt say that I have faith in the system. Before being asked by those in republics, whether I've lived anywhere else, I've also lived in the Federal Republic of Germany, and in East Africa. Ofcourse, the fact that I love my Queen does much to confirm my confidence in the system, but the nature of the system, of a Monarch as Soverign/Head of State, with a three-part government (Executive, legislative and judiciary), there is a strong check and balance system in practice.

The power exercisable by the Governor-Gereral in the absence of Her Majesty, has many-a-time been underestimated, as the republican Prime-Minister Edward Gough Whitlam found out on Remembrance Day 1975! So to say that our monarchy is irrelavent because of the accepted public opinion that it is, is no argument against what is a highly stable system of government. God save the Queen.

Idriel 07-10-2005 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian
The power exercisable by the Governor-Gereral in the absence of Her Majesty, has many-a-time been underestimated, as the republican Prime-Minister Edward Gough Whitlam found out on Remembrance Day 1975!

May I ask you what happened?

Australian 07-10-2005 08:35 AM

On Remembrance Day, 1975, Australia's most dramatic political event took place. The Governor General dismissed the Government, led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

the full story can be found here:
https://www.topologymusic.com/davidson/whitlam.htm

Idriel 07-10-2005 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
On Remembrance Day, 1975, Australia's most dramatic political event took place. The Governor General dismissed the Government, led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

the full story can be found here:
https://www.topologymusic.com/davidson/whitlam.htm

Thank you Australian

Australian 07-10-2005 08:42 AM

No worries :)

rop81 07-15-2005 08:09 PM

Iīm very proud of living in a monarchy and think that the system of a constitutional monarchy such as sweden for instance works very good. It keeps us in contact with our thousand year history of monarchy and is still as I see it very democratic, where the king has no political power what so ever and is under constant contral of the parliment and people. Sweden is often put as an example of democracy and openness, even though our head of state is not elected by the people, so it doesnīt seem to affect our international image much either. But itīs important that the king has the people behind him, the day that a majority of the swedish people say it does not see any reason with the monarchy then it has to be abolished, but not as it is now when it is mostly the members of the swedish parliment that wantīs to make Victoria unemployed and the royal family has a support by 70-80 % of the people.

Personally I hope that the bernadotte family will have their job for a long time to come.:)

GrandDuchess 07-16-2005 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rop81
Iīm very proud of living in a monarchy and think that the system of a constitutional monarchy such as sweden for instance works very good. It keeps us in contact with our thousand year history of monarchy and is still as I see it very democratic, where the king has no political power what so ever and is under constant contral of the parliment and people. Sweden is often put as an example of democracy and openness, even though our head of state is not elected by the people, so it doesnīt seem to affect our international image much either. But itīs important that the king has the people behind him, the day that a majority of the swedish people say it does not see any reason with the monarchy then it has to be abolished, but not as it is now when it is mostly the members of the swedish parliment that wantīs to make Victoria unemployed and the royal family has a support by 70-80 % of the people.

Personally I hope that the bernadotte family will have their job for a long time to come.:)

Hear hear! I as a Swede couldn't agree more with you!

For me, who has some experience of the political life in our country, one of the most important things about the monarchy is that it's un-political. Sweden is otherwise a very politicized country, almost all of the state and government institutions and supported institutions are politically run, which makes politics a powerful business no matter what your interests are. So for me, I thank god that we have a monarchy and a Head of State that stands above all this political partisanship, a force who can unite us all as one.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises