Monarchy - what do you think?
 

I was wondering a bit about monarchy today. There is this common notion that kings and queens belong to fairytales, yet so many countries, even the wealthy and modern ones, still keep monarchy as their form government of choice. Aristocracy seems to be something that a lot of the people are keen on becoming a part of. Now, personally I don’t understand how the fact that someone was born a son of an aristocratic ruler makes him any more suitable of governing power more then somebody from the “common” folk. From my point of view, aristocrats are scroungers, who seem to take pride and joy from distancing themselves evermore from all other parts of the society. I think we had enough instances in the past that showed clearly that monarchy is a flawed form of government (not to mention all the inbreeding, and the results of that – hemophilia, anyone?), and yet so many countries keep up with it, blatantly refusing to acknowledge that they’re being exploited by a bunch of people living in castles. Can anyone at least try to explain the pros of keeping monarchy in today’s world, other the upholding the sentiment in some people’s heads?

The United Kingdom has a monarchy in charge. In the end the Queen forms the Government. We have our General Elections to select our MPs and then at the end the Queen calls upon the leader of the party with a majority to form her Government.

As for advantages, the Royal family brings in many millions of pounds in terms of tourism to the UK. I also believe it's correct to maintain the tradition of a monarchy which has been in this country for near enough a millenium with William I starting the trend. It might just be me but I'm proud to have the Queen's face looking at me on a bank note and a stamp.

So for the "small" cost to the taxpayer (I think it is something around £1 per head per year) to keep them as our head of state you get many more benefits.

There needs to be some source from which the laws of the state are derived.

In a past age, the people who ruled by force of arms got the priests on their side and told them to say that their authority was derived from God himself, that they personally were a symbolic representation of their state's very sovereignty. And people bought it and whole societies were born and held together and died for one person because of an idea.

The USA however came into existence during an age of rationalism and was born from war and violence. Sovereignty was derived from founding documents based on the tenets of liberalism. But the stability of the body politic over a long period of time was ultimately what cemented the authority of those founding documents.

1) Some people nowdays who live in and advocate monarchies worry that if they were to change their form of Government, the derived authority of their new constitution might be too fragile to survive an unforeseen political crisis; that it would be safer instead to leave things be.

2) Some war veterans may hold an understandable emotional attachment to the idea that they quite literally fought for the King (or Queen).

3) A third sort are social climbers who like cucumber sandwiches, horse racing, Janette Howard, and grovelling to their "betters".

The first reason is the only potentially pragmatic one I can think of, the second is sentimental, the third is small and greedy.

I'm neither of those three however and look forward to my own country becoming a Republic.

Re: Monarchy - what do you think?
 

It was a good question, until this bit ruined it. I could say the same about the US president, along with all his wealthy supporters. Royalty does not equal exploitation, just like a President isn't always out to do what's best for his people.

We have a queen in the Netherlands, who is the *nominal* head of state. We're still a democracy, and there's not much the queen can do politically. She can refuse to sign laws, but that's unlikely to happen. She could refuse to accept a certain government, but (again) that's theoretical. I'd say she's not even remotely as powerful as the US president (and I'm not even talking about world power - just political power). She's a figurehead, where the US President is actually in control. In our country, that role is for the prime-minister, and even he can't do much without the support of his (and his coalition's) political parties.

Is this a better solution than a republic? Yes and no. If I were in charge, the royal family would be removed from politics altogether, and they wouldn't get one dime from our taxes. In their place, I'd like a President of similar political power, who can be voted out of office if he/she fucks up. We can't do that with our King/Queen, which is annoying at times. On the other hand, I have yet to see the royal family do anything *really* stupid.

Divine right is kind of dumb. Remember Emporer Commodus? The guy who said "Bow down to me nerdbitches!" and the Romans said "FU."

Yeah, the guy right after the one who made his horse a senator.

Luckily, there's a huge difference between the all-powerful royalty of the olde days, and the (Western-style) ceremonial figure-heads of today.

As a determined imperialist, i'm all for the monarchy in every form, it's an institution that dates back thousands of years, and is just part of britain at every level.
I'm filled with pride when i see the masses at the gates to Buckingham Palace (when i say masses, i mean half of the commonwealth) singing happy birthday to the queen, it's a sight you just don't see that often, if ever, elsewhere in the world.
The monarchy is an institution that will bring a country together, a figurehead who everyone can respect and be proud of.
I know theres a lot of pomp and circumstance (pun intended) around the monarchy today, and thats part of the magic of it all. Theres nothing like watching the trooping of the colour, or the horse guards parading down the mall, or the fireworks going off in southhampton after the queen names a liner.
but then again, i'm a dying breed, so most of that probably won't apply to other britons.


off topic ramble:

What i do think however, is how different the world would be if the English civil war had turned out differently.
For those who arn't awares, in the mid 16-1700s (correct me if i'm wrong, dates arn't my strong suit) parliment rebeled against the monarchy, and the english civil war ensued. At the end the parlimentarians one, executing King Charles I.
It was decided though several years later to restor the monarchy, albeit with greatly reduced powers, so started the reign of king Charles II.
This was before time of empire and granduer, so if the royalists had one, we'd probably be having the conversation of 'parliment, what do you think?'.

Here, here!

Can’t you have all that with an elected head of state? Why pay for a puppet-like head of state, without any real power, which is there simply to attract tourists? For that kind of mean you might jolly well built a royal theme park outside of London, Oslo, or wherever, and it would pretty much do the same thing. At least this is the notion I get so far.

Okay, I understand the sentimental value. But when you come down to the actual details, it doesn’t change the fact that the monarchy is a facade, and if it does, in fact, hold any power, then it’s very vulnerable. As far as I can see, it’s like this on-going, real life soap opera.

Monarchy maybe would work if you had an uber benevolent nice friendly good monarch.

What I have always been facinated by is the American president...

While there is no question that it is an elected office, the way in which many (many) Americans view those who hold the office is quite like a King.

It is almost a blind respect for the office... regardless of political offiliations.

I am not judging this one way or the other I am just making an observation.

Hey, at least the office isn’t hereditary... oh, wait a minute ;).

the queen technically is the worlds most powerful person, with the singular ability to send all her realms into war, and pretty much govern the rest of the commonwealth. Unfortunatly, we don't see that happening too much these days, which is a shame, because we're overdue for a war with france.

An elected head of state just doesn't have the same 'ness' as a monarch. If you elect someone, theres always going to be people disagreeing, and how long would they stay elected for? what type of thing would they do? how would they be elected?
Hereditary monarchy is something that you don't choose, it's there, and it's full of tradition. It's something in this day an age that can really go back to the good ol' days.

yes, it may be a facade, but it's a damned good one.

Re: Monarchy - what do you think?
 

You could say the same thing about the "royalty" serving as politicians in the US. Take a look at the income of the last 10 Presidents -- they are far from "common folk" represenatives.

Are you talking pay as president or money made before being president?

If it is the first, we do pay high but considering the stress and needing a man of good standing then it is well deserved.

If it is the latter, Ike, Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were far from "rich" and none would ever have been in the Forbes 500 wealthiest families. True they made more than the "average man" but they ran the country so they had to have been successful somewhere in life. Out of all the presidents none of them were common folk, most were either military men, educators or professional politicians.

Out of the last 10 presidents, the Bushes, Kennedy and maybe Johnson could be considered rich. Out of all of them most were born to modest incomed families and most died broke or with very little to their names. The Roosevelts, Bushes, Kennedy, LBJ, Harrisons, Pierce, Addams', maybe McKinley and Buchanan were the only ones from any "wealth".