The Monarchy Effect?

[Stunt]

This topic has been mentioned a few times in these forums...namely one, i'm sure he will show his face in this discussion, but i'm interested to hear what everyone here thinks of countries under monachies.

I am not concerned at the moment with dictatorship monarchies (absolute monarchies), this discussion is exclusively on CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH's like the following:

Major Countries with Constitutional Monarchies:
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK, Canada.

The facts:

- 8 of the top 10 countries in the human development report have constitutional monarchs.
- 16 of the top 25 GDP per capita countries are constitutional monarchs.

So, can anyone propose why having a monarch would be a bad thing?...I mean the results explain themselves. Is there really any truth to a monarch turning a country for the worse or even playing a role in today's politics?

Living in canada i feel having a monarch doesnt hurt us and is basically a non-existant issue (never is talked about, never comes into policy or society dynamics). If anyone could please propose resons in recent history why a democracy with a monarch is a bad thing or causes corruptness within a country.

The who concept of this arguement seems a little messed, so lets discuss this and see ho wyou guys feel about monarch's and reasons for abandoning it. I'm sure we can all agree that reform with no reason is pointless and troublesome. Why should these countries not have constitutional monarchs and why?

Have at it!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Do the governments spend any money on the royal families?

I mean the results explain themselves.

But they don't really saying anything about monarchies. They probably don't have much effect if any. Probably more of a social thing than anything else. Strange and archaic? Sure. Harmful? Probably not.

 

[308nato]

A lot of tabloids would be out of business in the UK w/o the monarchy.

It seems a waste of funds to prop up a lifestyle but thats what government is for, and traditions/heritage are hard to part with.

 

[DefRef]

Who the hell is the King/Queen of Canada?!?!? Are you a royalist who yearns to be ruled by a kind and benevolent monarch? If so, come to America and vote for the Democrats, who while are more Socialist-Fascist than anything, are always looking for people to subjugate.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Who the hell is the King/Queen of Canada?!?!?

The 'British' Queen is the 'queen' of Canada and Australia...that's why she's on the Canadian money I guess.

 

[Stunt]

Ok, so lets say it is strange (even though a good third of countries including some of the most important DO have monarchs) and archaic, what are we missing out on? How is it hurting us in any respect.

I don't think we spend money on our monarchy, interesting question though.

These guys Think that monarchies encourage democracy...i havent really looked into it, i am more concerned with reasons why a monarch would cause grief for the country. - "Coincidence ? Not at all, democracy is inseparable from tradition, this is why monarchies are the best feeding ground for democracy, when tradition commands."

 

[ReiAyanami]

well most of those monarchs are powerless and cant even keep away from the paparazzi. they're basically rich ppl with a title.

but inherited power is dangerous. just look at bush sr vs. bush jr

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: DefRef
Who the hell is the King/Queen of Canada?!?!? Are you a royalist who yearns to be ruled by a kind and benevolent monarch? If so, come to America and vote for the Democrats, who while are more Socialist-Fascist than anything, are always looking for people to subjugate.

lol, monarchs don't have to be left wing, you are just used to absolute monarchs (usually dictators) who are very socialist. Monarch's technically could have any political stance they want.

Of course this is a discussion on constitutional monarchs where the monarchy has no effect on policy and society. (unless shown otherwise by forum members)

 

[RabidMongoose]

What's exactly the difference between a monarch and a dictator anyways? Could we have said that Iraq was under a monarchy?

That website you provided isn't exactly very professional by any means.

Ok, so lets say it is strange (even though a good third of countries including some of the most important DO have monarchs) and archaic, what are we missing out on? How is it hurting us in any respect.

I don't think it hurts much at all. If the government supports the monarchy, then it probably takes away some funds that could go elsewhere.

 

[Todd33]

We have King Dick and Queen Bush.

 

[Stunt]

Heh, the US's contribution to the 'royal family' is contracts to haliburton

 

[f95toli]

As far as I remember the "monarchy" is actually costing us (I live in Sweden) quite a lot of money, however most of the money is spent on maintenance of building (such as castles), museums, parks etc; and the cost would of course be the same even without a Royal family.

The Royal family also travels a lot as representatives of Sweden, but those trips (which are expensive) are arranged by the government and are in reality mostly about PR and business opportunities for Swedish companies.
So in the end it would probably be as expensive to have an elected President, and then you do not get the free PR since powerless Presidents are not very interesting (does anybody know the name of the German president?),

Maybe I should point out the Swedish king has no political power at all; he is not even allowed to have an opinion about political issues(at least not in public).
This is true for most European countries, the exception being the UK but there the House of Lords is a much bigger problem from a democratic point of view than the Royal family.

So in principle I would prefer a President, but in reality the current political system works quite well and I see no immediate reason to change it.

 

[sandorski]

The British Monarchy and those former Colonies(Canada, Australia, etc) who perpetuate it are among the most Stable and Progressive Democracies in History. Even the US is a result of the Progressive Tradition and Culture founded upon the British Monarchy, though primarily from those who opposed the Monarchy. The success of the British Constitutional Monarchy system is the longheld Legal Tradition that evolved from a Emperor-like Monarchy to one which became a Monarchy where the Common Man and the Monarch were made Equals under the Law. It should be noted that long before the US gained Independence from Britain, Cromwell had established a US styled system of Government in Britain, although it was short lived. At anyrate, Britain was slowly evvolving into the kind of Democracy that it is today, though I believe that the US's success at it helped move Britain at an accelerated and more confident pace.

The biggest difference, IMO, between the US and Britain concerning Democracy is not in their Democracies, it is in the Process they used to acheive their Democracy. Britain chose Evolution, while the US chose Revolution. Both may have worked, but IMO the British method is likely more stable in the Longterm, as part of the British Tradition shows that drastic change can be acheived within the System if it is given enough time and People are patient.

 

[CanOWorms]

I oppose monarchies. It's a tradition that shouldn't around in the 21st century. It's an archaic, unnecessary tradition like seppuku. I don't understand why monarchists/royalists support such a caste system.

A few examples of monarchies hurting a society/country:

1) Canada - the monarchy is a big problem for Quebec (it's the only province with a significant anti-monarchy stance)
2) Lichtenstein - 64% of voters approved giving their prince broad powers
3) These monarchies eat away a lot of money. Now obviously some make money from tourism like the UK monarchy, but many don't. I believe it's Sweden or Norway where the monarchy is the largest receipient of social aid.
4) Supports discrimination - The UK/Canada/Australia Queen cannot be non-Anglican
5) No elected head of state - you can never aspire to represent your country as the head of state because of your birth

 

[Stunt]

1) Canada - the monarchy is a big problem for Quebec (it's the only province with a significant anti-monarchy stance)
2) Lichtenstein - 64% of voters approved giving their prince broad powers
3) These monarchies eat away a lot of money. Now obviously some make money from tourism like the UK monarchy, but many don't. I believe it's Sweden or Norway where the monarchy is the largest receipient of social aid.
4) Supports discrimination - The UK/Canada/Australia Queen cannot be non-Anglican
5) No elected head of state - you can never aspire to represent your country as the head of state because of your birth

1) Quebec doent oppose the monarch, they want to preserve their culture of their tongue, sugn laws and very social stance. I have never heard the monarch once in the soverignty/referendum debate...any canadians want to validate either comment?
2) if they elected him to have broad powers, they are electing him as an elected official, doesnt matter if he is part of the royal family. You elected bush and gave him broad power with less than 50% of the vote. Which is less democratic?
3) No cost to us, and as the sweedish posted, would be not much more than having no monarch. But most constitutional monarch's are british and we pay nothing for the royalty affiliation.
4) Explain more...we have lots of anglicans, we are very multicultural...no discrimination here...just look at our policies...can you find a policy which discriminates from the queen?
5) we all have elected governments who have total control, show me where the head of state has changed policy...

 

[Martin]

I don't mind it really. Its kinda like a pet for the whole country, or a minor indulgence. You spend some minor sum, but you preserve some traditions and a link to the past.

In any case, hardly an issue worth debating about.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I don't mind it really. Its kinda like a pet for the whole country, or a minor indulgence. You spend some minor sum, but you preserve some traditions and a link to the past.

In any case, hardly an issue worth debating about.

So to paraphase, it is not a valid criticism to be making about a country unless there are real examples of a monarch changing the will of the people...aka. the elected officials of the democracy?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt

1) Quebec doent oppose the monarch, they want to preserve their culture of their tongue, sugn laws and very social stance. I have never heard the monarch once in the soverignty/referendum debate...any canadians want to validate either comment?

Quebec is largely against the monarchy. They mass protest her few visits to Quebec, too.

2) if they elected him to have broad powers, they are electing him as an elected official, doesnt matter if he is part of the royal family. You elected bush and gave him broad power with less than 50% of the vote. Which is less democratic?

You asked for negatives and that's a negative. The people are so obsessed with their monarchy that when he threatened to abdicate if they didn't give him powers, then immediately did it. You don't think that's a negative thing? Most people were very critical over it.

3) No cost to us, and as the sweedish posted, would be not much more than having no monarch. But most constitutional monarch's are british and we pay nothing for the royalty affiliation.

Canada spends tens of millions of dollars on the Monarchy and its servants. The Swedish guy didn't provide any facts. How would it not be much more?

4) Explain more...we have lots of anglicans, we are very multicultural...no discrimination here...just look at our policies...can you find a policy which discriminates from the queen?

Canada's Queen cannot be Catholic or any other religion but Anglican. It's against Canadian beliefs to be discriminatory like this. It's like saying the US President cannot be Catholic - it's against the fundamentals of the society.

5) we all have elected governments who have total control, show me where the head of state has changed policy...

I'm talking in a representative sense.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I oppose monarchies. It's a tradition that shouldn't around in the 21st century. It's an archaic, unnecessary tradition like seppuku. I don't understand why monarchists/royalists support such a caste system.

A few examples of monarchies hurting a society/country:

1) Canada - the monarchy is a big problem for Quebec (it's the only province with a significant anti-monarchy stance)
2) Lichtenstein - 64% of voters approved giving their prince broad powers
3) These monarchies eat away a lot of money. Now obviously some make money from tourism like the UK monarchy, but many don't. I believe it's Sweden or Norway where the monarchy is the largest receipient of social aid.
4) Supports discrimination - The UK/Canada/Australia Queen cannot be non-Anglican
5) No elected head of state - you can never aspire to represent your country as the head of state because of your birth

1) Quebec has issues with a number of things, Monarchy is way down the list

2) So? Note that they Democratically chose to do it. If that's what they want, how does that make for an arguement against Monarchy?

3) That's up for individual Nations to choose, if they want to pay the costs, so be it. How does this make an arguement against Monarchy?

4) Hmm, really reaching on this one. An issue that only affects the Monarchs themselves, doesn't make an arguement against Monarchy, more like an arguement for the Reform of Monarchy in regards to Basic Human Rights of Monarchs.

5) Totally wrong. We have something better than "Head of State", a Prime Minister which, for all intents and purposes, is the most powerful position in the Nation. "Head of State" is window dressing, a mere symbol(though living) with the same "power" as a Flag or Coat of Arms.

 

[f95toli]

About point 3: The appanage, which is money controlled by the court and not by the parliament, 2003 was SEK 44.6M, which is something like 5 million dollars.
I don't know how much of that money is used by the Royal family, but I would guess most of it is used to pay salaries (secretaries etc).

 

[CanOWorms]

In response to Sandorski's post:

1) Quebec has issues with a number of things, Monarchy is way down the list

It's an important problem that you're intentionally trying to make worthless. Even if you succeed and say it's way down the list, it is on the list. Please provide evidence that it's way down the list since there is much evidence that the monarchy causes problems for Quebec.

2) So? Note that they Democratically chose to do it. If that's what they want, how does that make for an arguement against Monarchy?

People are blinded for their love of the monarchy so that they do as their monarch commands. This was highly criticized. It's what 2/3 want. Either way, it is dangerous for democracy.

3) That's up for individual Nations to choose, if they want to pay the costs, so be it. How does this make an arguement against Monarchy?

How is it not an argument against Monarchy? It's one of the most valid and most discussed points in removing monarchies.

4) Hmm, really reaching on this one. An issue that only affects the Monarchs themselves, doesn't make an arguement against Monarchy, more like an arguement for the Reform of Monarchy in regards to Basic Human Rights of Monarchs.

Why do you consider that really stretching it? It affects the monarch who is the head of state of the entire country. You approve of limiting this to one religion? This is another very important, often discussed point in removing monarchies, especially for Canada. There was an important court case involving this, too.

5) Totally wrong. We have something better than "Head of State", a Prime Minister which, for all intents and purposes, is the most powerful position in the Nation. "Head of State" is window dressing, a mere symbol(though living) with the same "power" as a Flag or Coat of Arms.

The Canadian Queen is the head of state. It's pretty simple. You're talking about something else now.

If you're not a royalist/monarchist, then I'm puzzled why you would support the monarchy or argue against someone who is against monarchies. The only thing I can come up with is that these are ultra-nationalist flag-wavers who refuse to accept criticism of their country, thus problems continue to get worse instead of better. It's odd that you just arbitrarily dismiss some of the most discussed points in monarchy debates.

These caste systems should just be removed and be in history books along with concepts like seppuku.

 

[f95toli]

CanOworms: We are being pragmatic, as long as the king has no polictal influence I don't see a real problem.

At least in Sweden the main reasons why we have this system are

* Historical. Call it "living history" if you want,
* We don't have to worry about electing a powerless president.
* Good PR. The "market value" of a Royal family is huge
* It gives the tabloids something to write about.
* Old ladies like the Royal family

Ia agree that it is a stupid system, it is just that I (and about 75% of the Swedish population) think that it is better than the alternative.

There are other countries with "real" reaons for keeping the monarchy: In Belgium and the Netherlands the court is a symbol of unity between ethnic groups, in Spain the king was repsponsible for the peacefull transition to democracy.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli
CanOworms: We are being pragmatic, as long as the king has no polictal influence I don't see a real problem.

At least in Sweden the main reasons why we have this system are

* Historical. Call it "living history" if you want,
* We don't have to worry about electing a powerless president.
* Good PR. The "market value" of a Royal family is huge
* It gives the tabloids something to write about.
* Old ladies like the Royal family

Ia agree that it is a stupid system, it is just that I (and about 75% of the Swedish population) think that it is better than the alternative.

There are other countries with "real" reaons for keeping the monarchy: In Belgium and the Netherlands the court is a symbol of unity between ethnic groups, in Spain the king was repsponsible for the peacefull transition to democracy.

Well, I just think that preserving a caste system isn't worth it no matter what the advantages are. IMO monarchies and other caste systems, seppuku, sati, apartheid, slavery, etc. are all things that don't belong in the modern world.

I think you can keep history by having the former monarchy buildings in control of the government/public. I'd think that only the UK royal family has a significant market value for tourism. Former French royal palaces and whatnot are popular even without a royal family sitting on a throne. Tabloids always have junk to talk about - celebrity gossip, etc. And honestly, who cares about tabloids? More than old ladies support royal families, too. For example, in Canada 18-30 year olds support the monarchy much more than their elders (due to the popularity of Prince William vs. dislike of Prince Charles).

 

[sandorski]

Can: :roll: Come on now, a "Caste" system? Your Heritage should be enough to show you how ridiculous and over-the-top the useage of that term is here. Your constant over reaching on this subject(Monarchy) weakens your points, not strengthens it.

As someone who has lived under a "Monarchy" all my life, I can say that your Anti-Monarchist arguements are crap and have no basis on Contemporary Reality. Travel back a few Centuries or go to a True Monarchy in the Third World and you might have a legit arguement.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Can: :roll: Come on now, a "Caste" system? Your Heritage should be enough to show you how ridiculous and over-the-top the useage of that term is here. Your constant over reaching on this subject(Monarchy) weakens your points, not strengthens it.

As someone who has lived under a "Monarchy" all my life, I can say that your Anti-Monarchist arguements are crap and have no basis on Contemporary Reality. Travel back a few Centuries or go to a True Monarchy in the Third World and you might have a legit arguement.

It's a caste system, plain and simple. At least that's how I view it.

You may have lived in a monarchy all your life, but that doesn't mean you have to support it. My arguments that I've stated here are all rooted in contemporary reality, not ancient times or such. What point can't be used in today's world?

1. Quebec exists today
2. Lichtenstein's vote happened recently
3. Monarchies eat money today
4. Supports discrimination - it was even fought in a Canadian court case from 2002 or 2003
5. they are the head of states today

None of those are related to the world of centuries ago. Plus there are a whole lot of other points, that's just a few random ones I stated since Stunt asked for examples of monarchies harming society/countries.

Your declaration that those few points I brought up belong to ancient history rather than contemporary reality is over-the-top, especially since all of those happened recently in today's time.