Are You A Royalist?

[COUNTESS]

I find them interesting, but no. Most countries could live well without their monarchies. If they want them, that is their business.

 

[Empress Merel]

I find it interesting but if all monarchies were to go tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. A monarchy + 2013= old fashioned to me.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'm going to edit my post as I now have different views:

I'm defintatly a royalist! I can't imagine living in a country without a monarchy; and if I ever moved countries, it would probably have to be one with a monarchy . I just love occasions like royal weddings and Trooping of the Color. Most of my excitement last year was because of the Jubilee, whilst most of my friends were excited for the Olympics.

My Queen is Elizabeth II, so my Royal Family is the BRF. I would be very upset if our monarchy ever went away. I've always dreamed of being royalty, ever since I can remember...

I'm a monarchist, and like the concept of a constitutional monarchy. I also like to hear royal news so I'm up to date, and I do follow most of the European Royal Families. I just love events like royal weddings and Trooping of the Colour (but then again I suppose we all like a royal wedding! ). I also like finding out information about pretending royal families (like Italy and France), as I think they're interesting. If any monarchy ever went, then I would be quite disappointed.

 

[Shelo]

I am a royalist and will continue to be as long as monarchies stay relevant and make meaningful contributions to their countries. I grew up in the Netherlands but have lived in Canada now for 20 years: I see the Queens (and other royal family members) in these two countries doing a lot to unify the country, provide leadership and support many wonderful charities.

I'll admit- with everything happening in Spain, I've been wondering if monarchies should be tossed. I think when they are involved in corruption and are only self serving (as the Spanish one seems to have become) then they need to go.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I don't think any of the Constitutional Monarchies have to go. But many has to return.

 

[Mariel]

I am not a monarchist because I see that hereditary monarchs have traditionally inbred.
As long as they have stopped inbreeding, I can see use for them as good examples, cultural leaders, etc. When they do little more than play at being rich, I see no use for them. I admire some monarchies much more than others. Luxembourg is my favorite.
I like a monarchy where the ruler and his family are highly educated, like the Luxembourgers, and therefore able to input economic direction to the government, even if behind the scenes. I do not like the monarchies which are known primarily as wearers of high fashion clothing, although I like to look at the pretty clothes too.

 

[nascarlucy]

Monarchies are old fashioned to a certain degree. They change very slowly and sometimes they stubbornly hold on to some traditions which are done bascially as a formality. Some of these traditions are good. Others aren't and sometimes hanging on to old traditions depending on what they are can be more damaging than helpful. However in the countries where the monarchy still exists, they are good PR for tourism and they are also part of the cultural heritage of that country.

Some royals or royal households put great emphasis on appearances on how others perceive them, some royalty going overboard on this. When they go overboard on this or try to make themselves appear to be what they aren't (a happy family which isn't or a happily married couple who clearly aren't happy together), people see right thru it after a while even when people try to hid this. The royals who are the happiest are probably the families that don't go overboard on this or don't make this a major issue.

Even so, I'm a royalist at heart. Like others on this blog some royal families I like better than others. The ones I like are the ones who are royal in a classy way. The ones who don't say a lot but people respect them because of their good example. These royals are not flashy nor do they seek out attention.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

I´m more ambivalent when it comes to Royalty. I do believe some countries are better under a monarchy than others where a Republic fits better.
I would love to see Romania as Monarchy again, but for example France, not really.

 

[padams2359]

Is a country like Iran better off now than they were at the time of the Shah? I was young then, just remember him leaving. Are the people better off now than then?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I am a Royalist royally through and through.

 

[Somebody]

One of the reasons I prefer a monarchy over a republic is that (at least in most European constitutional monarchies) the head of state is (supposed to be) apolitical and is prepared for that position from the very start. It is not a race they have to win, so no need to be popular at the cost of someone else and many times large porpotions of the population, but just one unifying force/family whose sole purpose is to serve and represent their country the best they can.

 

[Blog Real]

I will always be a monarchist. And I still dream of the restoration of the monarchy in Portugal.

 

[Curryong]

I am a royalist. As an Australian I'm also a realist, however. I just cannot see Australia or any of the other realms really having King Charles as Head of State for long. As a royalist that saddens me but I see it as an inevitable progression.
For me, a constitutional monarchy with an apolitical HOS has enormous advantages. As a history buff I love the sense of continuity and of tradition and pomp and ritual inherent in a monarchy.

It's not a 'one size fits all' situation though. For some countries like the US, being a republic is part of the country's DNA. and I don't believe that most citizens of European countries that were once monarchies wish to turn back history either.

 

[Purrs]

No, I'm not at all.

I disagree with the concept that some people are born into certain positions and the class system. Personally, I wish the Governor General of Canada (our symbolic head of state) represented the country of Canada, not the Queen. As well, in our citizenship oath, we should swear an oath of allegiance to the country of Canada and its laws, not the Queen.

However, I think it is up each country whether they retain a monarchy.

On a personal level, I admire Queen Elizabeth II and her devotion to duty. I'm intrigued by the monarchy, its history and how they adapt to the modern world but no, I'm not a royalist.

 

[Muhler]

I am a royalist - in Denmark.

Because the monarchy works here, it has always been here, it's deeply embedded in my cultural and national identity.

I like to see and sometimes follow other monarchies, to see how they do. How they handle their jobs, how they adapt to their even changing roles.
I prefer the monarchies to remain in the countries where it is at present, and if it might work I'd like to see it reinstated in former monarchies.

However, had I been born in a republic, the monarchy may have fascinated me, but it is by no means sure I would have been a monarchist. It is what works in whatever country that matters.

 

[Mbruno]

I support the continuation of the monarchy in countries (especially European countries) that are monarchies today. I don't support the introduction of a monarchy in countries that have always been republics (like the US for example) and I have a mixed opinion about the restoration of the monarchy in countries where the monarchy was overthrown. Many monarchies that fell had a pretty poor track record, which is more or less self-explanatory, i.e. if their record had been positive, they probably would not have fallen.

 

[wyevale]

Yes, it's 'in my blood'.. An ancestor 'fell' fighting for his King at Edgehill [the first Battle of the English Civil War in October 1642].

 

[Osipi]

Although I live in the US, after avidly watching both the constitutional monarchy of the UK for the last 10 years and watching the upheavals in our own government here, I would state that I'm a monarchist and prefer a constitutional monarchy.

There is something special about having a royal family that personifies a country's history and traditions. It also gives the people a uniting glue as the monarch is for all of the people and is apolitical. There's a separation between the Head of State and the Prime Minister of the government of the day and political tensions and issues.

This is what we don't have in the US. There is division between political parties up to and including the President as the Head of State.

 

[Mbruno]

There is something special about having a royal family that personifies a country's history and traditions. It also gives the people a uniting glue as the monarch is for all of the people and is apolitical. There's a separation between the Head of State and the Prime Minister of the government of the day and political tensions and issues.

This is what we don't have in the US. There is division between political parties up to and including the President as the Head of State.

You don't need a monarch to effect a separation between the Head of State and the Head of Government. That can be achieved in a parliamentary republic with a constitution similar to that of present-day Germany for example, although I admit that the separation works better and the ceremonial Head of State has a much greater symbolic and historic value in a monarchy than in a republic.

Many of the problems in modern US politics are associated with the presidential/congressional system rather than with the US being a republic. On the other hand, parliamentary government has its flaws too, especially in countries with fragmented multiparty systems where elections often produce hung parliaments, which unfortunately have been the norm in many European countries lately.

Bottom line: no system is perfect and they all have advantages and disadvantages to them. Constitutional monarchy with a "de facto" two-party system as in the UK, Australia or Canada is perhaps the most "stable" system, but it may be also negative in the sense of giving too much power (no checks and balances) to the party that is in government.

 

[Somebody]

Coming from a 'multi party system', I would say the two-party system is one of the root causes of the issues that countries such as the USA face as it is very polarizing; it seems that a lot of nuance is lost if your only option is to be 'pro' one party/candidate and 'against' the other.

However, it's getting rather political this way. I do agree that it is important to recognize that a republic doesn't necessarily mean that the head of states has executive power; nor does a monarchy mean that a head of state by definition is impartial. These are still things that need to be decided within the system. I also agree that if the highest calling for the head of state is to be impartial, electing politicians associated with a specific party doesn't make that much sense; so a monarchy would be the preferred option

 

[Mbruno]

However, it's getting rather political this way. I do agree that it is important to recognize that a republic doesn't necessarily mean that the head of states has executive power; nor does a monarchy mean that a head of state by definition is impartial. These are still things that need to be decided within the system. I also agree that if the highest calling for the head of state is to be impartial, electing politicians associated with a specific party doesn't make that much sense; so a monarchy would be the preferred option

Agreed, but, on the other hand, the "price" you pay for that "impartiality" or "political neutrality" is to accept a hereditary (and completely non-meritocratic) system where the position of Head of State is a monopoly of the firstborn of a particular family who was often more or less arbitrarily chosen a long time ago. Many people (justifiably) feel uncomfortable with that.

 

[Missy-]

Yes, it's 'in my blood'.. An ancestor 'fell' fighting for his King at Edgehill [the first Battle of the English Civil War in October 1642].

One of my ancestors is Henry 'Hotspur' Percy who famously rebelled against his king and died at the Battle of Shrewsbury, effectively ending the War of the Roses. And I have five or six ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, two of whom died and one of whom gave his entire plantation to George Washington to support the cause. So no, I'm not a royalist at all, it's just not in my DNA. But I still find them fascinating and admire some of them like QEII.

 

[wyevale]

The reason [above ALL others] that I believe Monarchy is the best system is precisely the issue you raise Mbruno..

The 'Top job' is removed from the 'scope of ambition' - NO amount of politiking, bribery, lobbying or ANY sort of political or military skulduggery can 'get you there'...

 

[Mbruno]

One of my ancestors is Henry 'Hotspur' Percy who famously rebelled against his king and died at the Battle of Shrewsbury, effectively ending the War of the Roses. And I have five or six ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, two of whom died and one of whom gave his entire plantation to George Washington to support the cause. So no, I'm not a royalist at all, it's just not in my DNA. But I still find them fascinating and admire some of them like QEII.

We are getting off-topic here, but, when it comes to the American Revolution specifically, King George IMHO was often misrepresented in revolutionary literature (including the Declaration of Independence), not only because many of the colonial grievances should have been more properly directed at Parliament and the British ministers rather than the King, but also because the revolutionaries were often acting in the own self-interest of a section of the colonial elite, which was not that noble BTW, rather than in the cause of freedom against tyranny. The war should also be understood in the broader context of European (and world) politics at the time, with the French, Spanish and Dutch intervention in favor of the rebels playing a decisive role in its final outcome.

Last but not least, let us not forget that a large section of the colonial population was initially at best indifferent to the rebellion and another smaller section actually consisted of loyalists, some of whom even took arms in defense of the Crown. Probably, a Canadian who is a descendant of loyalists who fought on the other side in the war and had to flee the United States in its aftermath would have a very different point of view than your family.

 

[Somebody]

Agreed, but, on the other hand, the "price" you pay for that "impartiality" or "political neutrality" is to accept a hereditary (and completely non-meritocratic) system where the position of Head of State is a monopoly of the firstborn of a particular family who was often more or less arbitrarily chosen a long time ago. Many people (justifiably) feel uncomfortable with that.

Yes, the alternative is to accept a system in which money in many cases is important in deciding who becomes the next head of state; your network and family you were born into still have a huge impact; and where the 'impartial' position is part of a popularity contest or something that is arranged between political parties (who knows in exchange for what).

All in all, the position of head of state is still one of privilege only attainable by a very small part of the population and one that might be pursued because of self-interest rather than a sense of obligation, responsibility, and reverence for your 'calling'.

 

[Purrs]

You don't need a monarch to effect a separation between the Head of State and the Head of Government. That can be achieved in a parliamentary republic with a constitution similar to that of present-day Germany for example, although I admit that the separation works better and the ceremonial Head of State has a much greater symbolic and historic value in a monarchy than in a republic.
.

I've heard the argument here in Canada, that if we were no longer part of the Commonwealth, we'd be just like the US.

However, I agree with this poster, that we could still keep the parliamentary system (which I prefer) and not combine our symbolic head of state who is nonpolitical (the Governor General) with our actual head of state (the Prime Minister who is the leader of the party in power). IMHO, having these two functions separated works better. The only difference is that our Governor General would represent the country of Canada and its laws rather than the Queen. As the other poster pointed out, many countries use this system.

I also conceed that a monarch is probably a more obvious symbolic head than a Governor General but I don't like the idea of a heredity monarchy (despite being an admirer of the current British queen.)

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, the alternative is to accept a system in which money in many cases is important in deciding who becomes the next head of state; your network and family you were born into still have a huge impact; and where the 'impartial' position is part of a popularity contest or something that is arranged between political parties (who knows in exchange for what).

All in all, the position of head of state is still one of privilege only attainable by a very small part of the population and one that might be pursued because of self-interest rather than a sense of obligation, responsibility, and reverence for your 'calling'.

Very few people can or will become president, but no matter how rich or how famous one is, it is still a position that has to be earned. In other words, one must prove that he/she is worthy and work hard for it. Besides, it is not a position for life, but only a transient state. Whether it is political or not, there is a meritocratic element to a republic that cannot be emulated in hereditary monarchy.

Besides, even if not everybody may have the same realistic chances of ever becoming president, no one is barred "a priori" from running for president or occupying that office because of his/her family name. In that sense, a republic preserves the principle of equality of all citizens in the law. That is not true in a monarchy where the Royal Family is inherently elevated above everybody else.

As I said, every system has pros and cons. If the point is to complain that politics and elections are influenced by money and are susceptible to corruption, than we may well do away with representative democracy altogether and live under autocratic rule. Personally,I don't think that would be a wise choice !

 

[wyevale]

a position that has to be earned. In other words, one must prove that he/she is worthy

I can scarcely believe that [in 2018] ANYONE thinks that holds true...

 

[Mbruno]

I can scarcely believe that [in 2018] ANYONE thinks that holds true...

I honestly do. And that is as true for the US President as it is frankly for the British or Canadian PM. Very few politicians will ever get to be a PM or a President and, sometimes, the annointed "party leader" fails miserably.

Even when we talk about the non-partisan Heads of State in parliamentary republics, the chosen person has to show some particular quality to merit his/her nomination.

 

[Missjersey]

Definitely am although I grew up in U.S.......:first memory of a history lesson before I even started school was about Battle of Culloden. Je Suis Prest.