NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont like monarchy. In sweden we have constitutional monarchy that mean the king/queen have no official power over the policy in the land. But i think the "statecheif" (I dont no the word in english) shall bee in democratic order election even if the king only have representative task.


awful law is the king have punishment immunity dis it not right. everybody shall bee treat equal of the judicial system.

I don't live in a monarchy and I don't like the concept of morarchy (and also aristrocracy) very much, because I don't like the idea that some people are by birth better than others.

I live in Australia, and it's frustrating to live literally on the other side of the world to the UK but still be officially ruled by some rich parasite. I'd far prefer a home-grown leader.

Seeing as I don't live in a monarchy, I can't say whether or not I like it. But I personally don't see a problem with it. I mean, I wouldn't be happy if the States just decided to become a monarchy, but I don't have a problem with the concept of a monarchy.

It depends on the monarchy. The british monarchy is stable and does not intefere in the affairs of the people or in the making of law but is there as an ultimate safeguard should the need ever arise. Compared to some of the leaders Britain and Australia have elected I prefer the Monarchy as the executive power any day - particulary as they seem very neutral and willing even to pass laws that advesely affect them.

The only grudge I have is that should I meet the queen I would be expected to bow and follow protocal. She is only human, and I see no reason I should defer to her in such a way in person.

Without the Monarchy the UK would be completely at the mercy of the House of Commons. The reigning monarch has the power to block legislation, even if in practice it's not been done for nearly 300 years. Go Queenie!

Constitutional monarchies are generally okay, because the monarch is heavily restricted, and most of the power's they retain are ceremonial only. The real running of the country is done by the elected representatives.

A monarchy in the old-fashioned way is useful and good only if you have a good monarch. At least it cuts through the all the beurocracy and red tape.

I live in Australia, and it's frustrating to live literally on the other side of the world to the UK but still be officially ruled by some rich parasite. I'd far prefer a home-grown leader.
:) Maybe it's not right having a head of state from, and living in, the other side of the world, but I think we pay for her ;)

Monarch has always been a bad system of government, but what we have now is a constitutional monarchy, which is basicaly for tourism, convenience, and instilling patriotism. I like tourists, love convenience, but I regard patriotism as a dirty word, also I regret bringing back the sods after the English Civil War! However they have one very important use, they keep us from having a president, a position which is bad for democracy, and worst of all embarassing, as when an elected head of state does something stupid, you cant dissown them :)

True. (bring back the guillotine!)

But I think if we did away with the monarchist/representative democratic system altogether and replaced it with direct democracy, that is, rule by the people, then we would be far better off.

Consitutional monarchy is one of the best forms of government, if not the best. If it is coupled with the Westminster system, it protects the state from transforming into a dictatorship quite well.

I myself live in a federation; Russia doesn't call itself a republic.

Their alright. My country practices a constitutional monarchy, with having 11 kings (sultans) who rule their respective states rotating the countries kingship every 5 years. The countries ruling king would be called Agung. (Ah-Gong)

Then there's also a set of laws among the kings and their monarchy has (can't run around killing people or doing as they wish), that if they commit a crime, the citizens may not punish them, but the citizens can claim compensation. Plus there is a King's court, where all other kings would judge the royal member.

I think a monarchy system is alright as long as the ruler doesn't go apeshit, and with 11 kings like mine to rotate, they don't get too power hungry or jealous, as Kings rarely have to do anything either than ceremonial purposes, and give talks to the public about trying to be a good muslim etc etc. Plus most of them finally become kings when their like touching their 60's or 80's. (5 years, going round 11 kings, 55 years, and they have a minimum age limit of being a king).

The monarch however can act as a symbol, of everlasting, or the meaning to your kingdom. THats why my Agung is the ruler of the army & the muslim religion as well. And I think it's kind of good, that if the government goes fundie, the King can step in and declare marshal law(Unless he's fundie, but mostly they'll be caught up too much with their pretty jewels and money)

What's the difference between a federation and a republic?

Russia used to be a republic, being called Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic or something....

At least us Australians pay no taxes for the Queen, just for the Queens' representative in Australia the Governor-General, which would be much cheaper than having all the hoo-hah associated with a president or something (dictator???). Anyways, the monarchy basically support themselves through the businesses of their estates and investments. The money that they do get from taxpayers would mostly go back to the people in form of all the charities and community/international things they support (I think, not certain, if anyone has any actual numbers, please post em).
The last absolute monarch is the King of Swaziland, in southern Africa, but he lives in a shitty country that has 50% of its population with HIV.
However, he has 17 wives and they all have a palace and BMW each.
I have actually been to the Governor-General's residence here in Canberra on an offical visit, he's a top bloke and was very friendly and well-spoken. He told us a story about killing a crocodile with C4 in his SAS days in the Northern Territory. The protocol for meeting GG and HRH (Queen) are the same, basically its just about being polite and respectful. (something which much of modern society is lacking I suppose :rolleyes: )

Kimia, how do you actually propose a 'direct democracy' system to work?
(are you an anarchist?) a constitutional monarchy with a westminister system and good old Australian compulsory voting guarantees a government for the people, by the people.
Much more so than the what, 15-20% of people who actually vote for the American party that is in government.

I like having a Monarchy here in Britain. After all, we're completely backwards compared to other European countries by driving on the left side of the road, so lets just annoy those European bastards even more by having a monarchy! And people who argue that the Royal Family is a waste of money are scroungers. Big wow, 60p a year in tax!! That's really going to cripple you financially, isn't it?

What's the difference between a federation and a republic?

Russia used to be a republic, being called Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic or something....
A federation is a state which consists of several self-governing entities (states in the US and India, provinces in Canada, etc.) united by a central government.

A republic is harder to define; the most encompassing definition is probably 'a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country'.

Several states which are republics under this definition do not style themselves officially as such. For example, Burma, Israel, and Russia are never called 'republics' in government documents.

I think it costs (I may have got this wrong but its about right) every British citizen about 60 pence (a little less then a Euro and a bit more then a Dollar) for the Monarchy. Although that doesn't include their security costs. This is hardly anything and it gives us a national figure head that everyone can rally around (and also head of the Church of England). It seperates patriotism from Politics which in my view is a Good-thing for Democracy, not a bad one (do you really want to swear allegence to a prick like George Bush?). While many English Republicans can argue that the money would be better spent on traffic humps or somthing it is easy to simply to dismiss them as boring.

The British monarchy are an essential constituent of British culture, and the debate as to their relevence is one that has raged for over three centuries, subsequent to the dissolution of the right of the monarch to rule by Cromwell. The concept of privelage by birth may well rile the disadvantaged, however at an average cost of 60 pence per capita, and considerably less for the principal protagonists of anti-royal lambastings, since the lower classes pay sod all in taxes in Britain (thank you very much Labour). Furthermore, the monarchy procures considerably more capital by virtue of the tourism they facilitate than they procure from taxes, and accordingly are justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. As a committed conservative and royalist, I am aware that my sentiments are biased, however I find the concept of an ultimate authority beyond that of a politician elected by the ignorant masses comforting.Moreover, the Monarchy are quintessenially British, the embodiment of the quirks, tradition and history of Britain, thier abolishment is inonceivable, and were we bereft of their role as the heads of state, we wouldbe compelled to have President Tony Blair. Somehow I prefer the monarchy.

It seperates patriotism from Politics which in my view is a Good-thing for Democracy, not a bad one (do you really want to swear allegence to a prick like George Bush?). While many English Republicans can argue that the money would be better spent on traffic humps or somthing it is easy to simply to dismiss them as boring.

That sums my position up too. The last thing anyone should want is a self serving politico as head of state. From my point of view, anything at all which forces self centred politicians to be deferential to someone else is a good thing. Teached them a bit of respect, as they have quite clearly lost any they may have ever had for the general electorate.
Perhaps if they had to crawl through pig manure in pvc underwear to enter parliament that would be a good thing too?

The British monarchy are an essential constituent of British culture, and the debate as to their relevence is one that has raged for over three centuries, subsequent to the dissolution of the right of the monarch to rule by Cromwell. The concept of privelage by birth may well rile the disadvantaged, however at an average cost of 60 pence per capita, and considerably less for the principal protagonists of anti-royal lambastings, since the lower classes pay sod all in taxes in Britain (thank you very much Labour). Furthermore, the monarchy procures considerably more capital by virtue of the tourism they facilitate than they procure from taxes, and accordingly are justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. As a committed conservative and royalist, I am aware that my sentiments are biased, however I find the concept of an ultimate authority beyond that of a politician elected by the ignorant masses comforting.Moreover, the Monarchy are quintessenially British, the embodiment of the quirks, tradition and history of Britain, thier abolishment is inonceivable, and were we bereft of their role as the heads of state, we wouldbe compelled to have President Tony Blair. Somehow I prefer the monarchy.

Even though they're just some germans we picked up cheap from the remaindered bin. Id doesn't matter, it's the idea, not the reality, that matters. Certainly the armed forces are happier to swear to serve a nice old lady who looks like my mum, than that jug eared two faced twot Tony Bliar, or something as nebulous as a flag.

I'm against monarchy because I don't believe that political office should be considered property that gets passed down like the family silverware. I don't like the idea of people having political power as a birthright, it's something that should only be given through democratic elections.

Besides I don't agree with the tactics of a lot of the sycophantic monarchists. All they do is wave the words 'President Blair' around as a way of scaremongering and say how the Queen is non-political and a president would be partisan. That's ignoring the realities of republics across the world. If we took the American presidential system then we would have a partisan president. But if we were going to become a republic, it would be more likely to take the European model, with a prime minister and an seperate elected president. This president would be just a non-political as the Queen. But they would have the legitimacy that comes with being chosen democratically.

Still, lets not let these arguments stand in the way of being given the chance to grovel to these higher beings.

I'm sure the french president IS partisan.

Besides when were you personally called upon to grovel before a Royal?

The only grudge I have is that should I meet the queen I would be expected to bow and follow protocal. She is only human, and I see no reason I should defer to her in such a way in person.

Why do people think like this? Its the *office* you are defering to, not the person. If you met a President you'd address him as "Mr President" or what ever the term that country uses and observe the protocol of that country.

On the cost, the 60p per person does also include the cost of security. And again this is the cost of the office, im sure any President (and Downing Street for that matter) in a similar country cost the same.

I don't live in a monarchy and I don't like the concept of morarchy (and also aristrocracy) very much, because I don't like the idea that some people are by birth better than others.

But some people ARE born different. Some are more athletic, some more intelligent, some more prone to illness, some are disabled. we are all different with different abilities and differing prospects. Get over it.

I'm sure the french president IS partisan.
The French president is partisan because the French system is a hybrid known as the semi-presidential system. It falls between the average European parliamentary system and the American presidential system. Power in France is shared between the PM and the President. When I talked about European systems I was talking about countries like Italy and Germany.

Why do people think like this? Its the *office* you are defering to, not the person. If you met a President you'd address him as "Mr President" or what ever the term that country uses and observe the protocol of that country.

On the cost, the 60p per person does also include the cost of security. And again this is the cost of the office, im sure any President (and Downing Street for that matter) in a similar country cost the same.



But some people ARE born different. Some are more athletic, some more intelligent, some more prone to illness, some are disabled. we are all different with different abilities and differing prospects. Get over it.
People surly are diffrent but they are not better than each other.

I hate monarchs. I think the quicker we get rid of them, the better.

I don't see the point in having one. I know that the majority of Britians are happy to keep the monarchy. I don't really agree with having a head of state for Canada or Aus on the other side of the world. But since my country the last 'King' of my country abdicated and our PM politely told the Brits to find some other hobby whether they exist doesn't bother me :)

Whats wrong with British Dominions having the Queen as their head?
They have full powers of self-determination its just tradition, and there's nothing wrong with that.

"A monarch’s neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright." *Heinlein...I think*

I am Spanish. My country is a monarchy. BTW, I'm against them. Franco named our king as succesor, which is like if tomorrow a Canadian is named king of the USA by Bush. His work was succesful to improve democracy and avoid the return of a military dictator, but he has become useless now. The Royal Family spends all day in the Society Magazines and take 6 million€ (counting only the king!) each year from the National Funds.

As I said in post #16 a constituional Monarchy has advantages over a republic, although having a Monarch apointed by Franco might not appeal so much...

Nope. No one with an ounce of egalitarianism in their blood can seriously be in support of monarchy.

As I said I think that the privilages that Royal's recieve is worth it for the reward it brings. I don't think a monarchy causes social classes to occur either, after all America isn't a classless society and its a Republic.

As I said I think that the privilages that Royal's recieve is worth it for the reward it brings.

What rewards would these be, then?

People surly are diffrent but they are not better than each other.

Well its relative to what differences your measuring. If your disposed to a more muscular body they are going to be better at sports. If your intelligent, you'll be better at acedemic pursuits no matter what happens to your body.

I would suggest therefore, that some born into the trappings of ceremony and state matters may be better with dealing with those things than someone born on council estate. As evidence i'd point you to the difference in skill of diplomacy and conduct between Prince Charles (good) and Duke of Edinburgh (awful, and merely married into his position). That doesnt mean of course they would be better at actually *running* the country, which requires different qualities.

What rewards would these be, then?

Well it means that the head of state is automatically decided, there's no arguement. It also means that patriotism for the state is embodied by a neutral political figurehead not a partisan president. I would also argue that any elected representive (whether elected by the public or by the government its self (the federal convention in Germany)) has got to be partisan to a certain degree. I would argue it is better in a democracy for patriotic feeling to be labeled on a Monarchy, with no real power, then a president. E.g. The armed force swear an allengence to the Queen not to Tony Blair and in effect the Labour party. Anti-war protests are against the Labour party not the Soldiers of the Queen. I think that this is more likey to create a culture that is willing to question the government.

Well it means that the head of state is automatically decided, there's no arguement.
So undemocratic, yes.

It also means that patriotism for the state is embodied by a neutral political figurehead not a partisan president.
Who says patriotism has to be embodied in one figure, anyway?

I would also argue that any elected representive (whether elected by the public or by the government its self (the federal convention in Germany)) has got to be partisan to a certain degree.
Correct. It's called democracy, where the head of state would be elected for his beliefs about how the country should be run rather than chosen because of the accident of birth.

I would argue it is better in a democracy for patriotic feeling to be labeled on a Monarchy, with no real power, then a president. E.g. The armed force swear an allengence to the Queen not to Tony Blair and in effect the Labour party. Anti-war protests are against the Labour party not the Soldiers of the Queen.
See first response.

I think that this is more likey to create a culture that is willing to question the government.
Because the government is not explicitly tied to the state, and so there would be no element of treason involved? Granted. But by that measure, if the head of state displeases them, rather than stick with them (dishonouring the country, perhaps?), they can always be voted out of office.

So undemocratic, yes.
Is democracy about a method of choosing the head of state? I've always thought that it is about determining policy by the preference of majority.


Correct. It's called democracy, where the head of state would be elected for his beliefs about how the country should be run rather than chosen because of the accident of birth.
Incorrect. It is called a republic.


Because the government is not explicitly tied to the state, and so there would be no element of treason involved? Granted. But by that measure, if the head of state displeases them, rather than stick with them (dishonouring the country, perhaps?), they can always be voted out of office.
Try to tell the North Koreans to vote Kim Il Sung (yeah, he's still the president there) out of office... Or to the Chinese to vote Hu out.

Well its relative to what differences your measuring. If your disposed to a more muscular body they are going to be better at sports. If your intelligent, you'll be better at acedemic pursuits no matter what happens to your body.

I would suggest therefore, that some born into the trappings of ceremony and state matters may be better with dealing with those things than someone born on council estate. As evidence i'd point you to the difference in skill of diplomacy and conduct between Prince Charles (good) and Duke of Edinburgh (awful, and merely married into his position). That doesnt mean of course they would be better at actually *running* the country, which requires different qualities.
First of all I don't think that monarchies have better diplomates than republics, which should be that way by your logic. Second, as far as I see is the basic idea of hereditary monarchy (as in aristrocracies), that some people have by birth a higher status (what i mean by saying better) than other. Allthrough I know that also in republics some people possess a higher status by birth than other, it is not the idea behind this form of state. I personally despise the idea of some people inhibiting a higher status at birth.

Patriotism does not HAVE to be linked to one person, my point is that it CAN be i.e. Hitler. My other point is that it is not an adavantage for the head of state to have any power or any political priniciples. By giving people of figure head for people to attach to e.g the Queen you prevent them choosing a figure-head that not everyone would want to rally to e.g. Hitler, Mao Tony Blair etc.

I personally despise the idea of some people inhibiting a higher status at birth.

While you may find it distasteful I would urge you to consider the advantages, I think that "constistutional" Monarchy is the lesser of two evil but like you I would find actual governmental power being dispersed hereditarilly (if thas even a word) moral wrong

Well it means that the head of state is automatically decided, there's no arguement. It also means that patriotism for the state is embodied by a neutral political figurehead not a partisan president. I would also argue that any elected representive (whether elected by the public or by the government its self (the federal convention in Germany)) has got to be partisan to a certain degree. I would argue it is better in a democracy for patriotic feeling to be labeled on a Monarchy, with no real power, then a president. E.g. The armed force swear an allengence to the Queen not to Tony Blair and in effect the Labour party. Anti-war protests are against the Labour party not the Soldiers of the Queen. I think that this is more likey to create a culture that is willing to question the government.
I'm sorry, but in Germany the president is elected by the parlament, not by the goverment. However he is most likely partisan, but don't have to. The german Bundespresident, like the Queen, doesn't possess power and is obligated to neutrality.

I think the Monarchy works as a great way to keep the power in the people's hands e.g. if Tony Blair was to proclaim himself dictator the queen would stop him

it also makes a great deal of money :D

But I think Monarchy is a British thing much like Banzai for the Japanese any other cultures find it difficult to comprehend

While you may find it distasteful I would urge you to consider the advantages, I think that "constistutional" Monarchy is the lesser of two evil but like you I would find actual governmental power being dispersed hereditarilly (if thas even a word) moral wrong
Well, actually both, democratic republics and constitutional monarchies, seem to work both fine. I would never advise the Britans nor any other country to overthrow their monarchies, because it's not my business to meddle in foreign affairs. I just don't like the basic idea of monarchy.

Correct. It's called democracy, where the head of state would be elected for his beliefs about how the country should be run rather than chosen because of the accident of birth.

That would be a valid argue if the king ran the country. But the monarchy is only a figure; the laws and official positions (at least in Spain) are the onnes the elected Government marks. I don't know the position of my King about Iraq. But the former government wanted to be in Iraq, and we were. The actual government doesn't want, and we aren't.

**Unfortunately for the former government, they didn't hear the people.

But I think Monarchy is a British thing much like Banzai for the Japanese any other cultures find it difficult to comprehend

I don't think so. Many countries in different cultures are ruled by monarchies.

The problem is that when the Federal convention elects a the President they give him (not officially I know) a mandate. If in an interview s/he says I think telephones are evil then German people might think, "well if the president thinks that". Particularly if the president used to be a politican for the ruling party (which would have the most seats in Parliament). The head of state could give a presidential seal of approval. This conflict could occur.

Monarchs take up space and contribute nothing to society when they could easily. We have enough rich élites. Let's get rid of at least one set.

I would disgree with that, you can't possibly make such a generalisation

Monarchs take up space and contribute nothing to society when they could easily. We have enough rich élites. Let's get rid of at least one set.
Do you want not only to remove, but to dispossess the monarchs?

The problem is that when the Federal convention elects a the President they give him (not officially I know) a mandate. If in an interview s/he says I think telephones are evil then German people might think, "well if the president thinks that". Particularly if the president used to be a politican for the ruling party (which would have the most seats in Parliament). The head of state could give a presidential seal of approval. This conflict could occur.

That is happening? I think that people have their own ideas. Particularly, if my president says seriously such jokes I'd agree with a change of government. And everybody. Or not?

The problem is that when the Federal convention elects a the President they give him (not officially I know) a mandate. If in an interview s/he says I think telephones are evil then German people might think, "well if the president thinks that". Particularly if the president used to be a politican for the ruling party (which would have the most seats in Parliament). The head of state could give a presidential seal of approval. This conflict could occur.
That may very well be true, but I guess a monarch has also a political opinion and can hold sympathies for a party, which can happen to be the ruling party. A monarch is not nessessarly nutral. We shouldn't forget, that Italy was a monarchy during the Mussulini dictatorship.For easy reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#History)

Thats a good a point but I still think that an elected president would have more political weight then a Monarch and if the've got no power, does it really matter who they are?

We should Rember that even when England Was a Republic Oliver Cromwell Ruled it like a Psuedo-Monachary

I dont like monarchy. In sweden we have constitutional monarchy that mean the king/queen have no official power over the policy in the land. But i think the "statecheif" (I dont no the word in english) shall bee in democratic order election even if the king only have representative task.


awful law is the king have punishment immunity dis it not right. everybody shall bee treat equal of the judicial system.

I love monarchies. In my own nation, Hoos Bandoland, I am an absolute monarch! My word is law and I allow no serious dissent, as I obviously know what is best for everyone! As it should be!

We should Rember that even when England Was a Republic Oliver Cromwell Ruled it like a Psuedo-Monachary
Yes, but that was over 300 years ago. Things change.

In England the monarchy has no power or influence but we maintain them as a tourist attraction, and since they generate more revenue that way than they actually cost, I suppose I'm okay with them.

Thats a good a point but I still think that an elected president would have more political weight then a Monarch and if the've got no power, does it really matter who they are?
Here in Germany plenty people don't even know who their elected president is. So he can't have to much political weight, but overall I don't think it is really important if the head of state is a president or a monarch. I just don't like the concept of monarchy on an emotional base.

I like monarchys

I don't like the idea or institution of Monarchy or Aristocracy....

...and I'm a member of the "Aristocracy". Dispossessed German aristocracy, but of the blood nonetheless.

Trust me, they think their shit doesn't stink, but their farts give them away. Membership in the Aristocracy is a guarantee that some of your ancestors were crooked and corrupt, undeserving but most likely cunning at least in an animal way. Nothing justifies having money and power over the lives of others simply because of accident of birth.

I Nothing justifies having money and power over the lives of others simply because of accident of birth.

In the words of forest gump "life is like a box of chocolates". I've got nothing against inheritance but your right Monarchies shouldn't have real power

I'm personally in favour of the UK remaining a constitutional monarchy, and, indeed, think that we need more solid barriers to prevent actions which will ultimately be regretted, taken on the whim of the house of commons.

Yes, provided I (or someone like me) gets to be the king. Monarchy is (ideally) the most efficient way of ensuring the rights of the people are protected. Unfortunately, due to its high failure rate (maybe it starts off right but a later king turns out to be unfit for such a duty), the all-around best way is constitutional republicanism (small 'r' for my fellow Americans, don't get so excited). The constitution tells the people what rights are inviolable and lets them fool around with the rest.