# What do you think about Monarchy? Isn't it better than a Republic?



## Gustavoang

Hello.

I'd like to know what's your opinion on Monarchy? Don't you think it's better to count with a Republic? Does it worth spending huge amounts of money on them? Does it promote equality among the population? Are they useful?

TIA.

Regards.


----------



## coconutpalm

There are various political systems, and I see inequality everywhere.
I came from China, whose political system is under fierce criticism, esp. by westerners (I mean no offence). I'd like to listen to your opinions on this post.


----------



## vince

Both can be good, both can be bad. There are cases where monarchies are freer than republics, and cases of the opposite.

Monarchies I wouldn't like to live in: Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Jordan
Monarchies I wouldn't mind living in: United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, Spain

Republics I wouldn't like to live in: North Korea, Indonesia, Zimbabwe
Republics I wouldn't mind living in: United States, France, Germany, Ireland

So in regards to living standards and actual freedom, it all depends on the politics, not on whether the country is a republic or a monarchy in name.

But with regards to symbolism and the values I stand for, a republic is better. Aristocracy and social classes should not be inherited. In a republic, a rich man may hold political power. But he cannot guarantee that his son will hold the same power, for the son could gamble it all away and he is ruined. But for monarchies, the dynastic line is followed. A father grooms his son knowing that one day he will be king. The whole nation is forced to respect the king not because he is a great individual of good character, but solely because he is the symbol of the state and disrespecting him would be treason, even if he is a wasteful decadent hedonist.

For Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada, they should get their own head of state, either by choosing a home-grown monarch, or by electing a president. How is Queen Elizabeth II Canadian? How can she represent Canada if she is foreign to its land, language, culture, and traditions?


If a monarchy must exist, let it be as egalitarian and minimalist as possible. It has to be a constitutional monarchy where all major political decisions are debated upon and decided by elected officials, which at the end receive the signature of the Crown. The royal family should be paid decent wages but not to live lavishly. They should interact frequently with their fellow citizens instead of living a life of seclusion in a fancy palace.


----------



## asm

off the record: I think monarchies are the most expensive welfare systems in the world. Their historical significance is part of our history, but in modern times they are not relevant, they don't contribute to any social advance. 




			
				Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Hello.
> 
> I'd like to know what's your opinion on Monarchy? Don't you think it's better to count with a Republic? Does it worth spending huge amounts of money on them? Does it promote equality among the population? Are they useful?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> Regards.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Hello.
> 
> I'd like to know what's your opinion on Monarchy? Don't you think it's better to count with a Republic? Does it worth spending huge amounts of money on them? Does it promote equality among the population? Are they useful?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> Regards.



I'm glad we don't have one in the United States.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi, vince.

It's an interesting post.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> For Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada, they should get their own head of state, either by choosing a home-grown monarch, or by electing a president. How is Queen Elizabeth II Canadian? How can she represent Canada if she is foreign to its land, language, culture, and traditions?



I'm absolutely in agree with you here. I have lots of unanswered and frequently asked questions in my mind, and that's one of them. I just can't find it reasonable.




			
				vince said:
			
		

> If a monarchy must exist, let it be as egalitarian and minimalist as possible. It has to be a constitutional monarchy where all major political decisions are debated upon and decided by elected officials, which at the end receive the signature of the Crown. The royal family should be paid decent wages but not to live lavishly. They should interact frequently with their fellow citizens instead of living a life of seclusion in a fancy palace.



But, you think they should exist although several things must change? Nowaday, what do people profit from monarchy?


----------



## Gustavoang

asm said:
			
		

> off the record: I think monarchies are the most expensive welfare systems in the world. Their historical significance is part of our history, but in modern times they are not relevant, they don't contribute to any social advance.


So do I think; that's why I opened this thread...

Indeed they're an important part of history, but - if they were useful in the past- they're no longer necessary for the current societies, furthermore, they're highly expensive and forbid populations from having the entire power over themselves (they all do so IMO, but at differents levels).


----------



## diegodbs

> and forbid populations from having the entire power over themselves


 
Not always, at least in constitutional monarchies. I am against monarchies but in Spain the king rules but doesn't govern. The parliament elected by the people and the government elected by the parliament have the power.

We could even change the Constitution through a qualified majority of the Parliament and become a republic.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi.



			
				diegodbs said:
			
		

> Not always, at least in constitutional monarchies. I am against monarchies but in Spain the king rules but doesn't govern. The parliament elected by the people and the government elected by the parliament have the power.
> 
> We could even change the Constitution through a qualified majority of the Parliament and become a republic.



I read this several weeks ago:


> ¿Es verdad que el ciudadano Juan Carlos Borbón apenas tiene poder?
> 
> No, según el apartado "h" del Artículo 62 de la Constitución Española de 1978, Corresponde al rey: "El mando supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas". De lo cual cabe interpretar que en España, esa figura vitalicia y hereditaria ejerce el poder de un modo completamente discrecional. En cualquier momento, se puede decretar el estado de sitio o excepción, y hacer uso de la fuerza del Estado, que más allá de toda legitimidad y representación, descansa en la amenaza del uso de la fuerza.



For those who don't speak Spanish, it states that the king of Spain even controls the Armed Forces according to the Spanish Constitution.

Regards.


----------



## diegodbs

Lo que ha dicho esa persona en la entrevista es sencillamente mentira.

Artículo 63.3 de la Constitución Española:



> "Al Rey corresponde, *previa autorización de las Cortes Generales*, declarar la guerra y hacer la paz."


 
Artículo 64.1 de la Constitución Española.


> Los actos del Rey *serán refrendados por el Presidente del Gobierno*...


 
El Parlamente controla al rey; el rey no controla al Parlamento.

El rey no ejerce el poder "de un modo completamente discrecional" como dice la persona de la entrevista. Es él quien habla de un modo completamente desinformado o tendencioso.


----------



## nokeeffe99

From what I see, citizens of monarchies frequently debate whether or not they should become republics (e.g. UK, Spain).

As far as I can tell, citizens of republics never even consider the idea of becoming monarchies.

Any nominations for King of America???


----------



## maxiogee

As a citizen of the Republic of Ireland my views on Monarchy are probably stilll informed by the lingering legacy of British rule here.

However, living next door to Britain and consuming large quantities of British news - from British media - I can say that the quality of rule in both countries is probably about the same… pretty dire. But that has more to say, I think, about the "political classes" than it does about the way our two societies are structured.

I will say this, on a visit to Paris not too long ago we went to Versailles and I was fascinated to see the splendour. However my memorable moment came after I had finished the tour and was outside. I was some distance from the building and turned back to look at it. I saw Le Tricolore (on which our own flag was modelled) flying from it and got a lump in my throat - very similar to the one I always get when I watch _Casablanca_ and the patrons of Ricks Café sing _La Marseillaise_ —> I think I'm a republican at the very core of my being. Note the small (r) there.  I cannot justify anyone having 'station' over someone else because their ancestors won certain battles hundreds of years ago, or worse, because they married someone's brother/sister.

I'm not sure that I would go so far as to agree with the contention that "all property is theft", but I would certainly feel that someone has been robbed when someone can 'own' a county.

I seriously doubt that "all men are created equal", as anyone can see in rates of childhood illnesses and other afflictions, but it's a good way to think.


----------



## lizzeymac

nokeeffe99 said:
			
		

> From what I see, citizens of monarchies frequently debate whether or not they should become republics (e.g. UK, Spain).
> 
> As far as I can tell, citizens of republics never even consider the idea of becoming monarchies.
> 
> Any nominations for King of America???



I hope this does not offend anyone.  To me, these are some of the sore spots of monarchy, among many.

Aren't the people who live "under" a monarch most usually called "subjects" rather than "citizens"?
I am under the impression you must bow or curtsey to monarchs, is this a fairly universal requirement?

As an American, I may be making too much of it.  I grew up curtseying to the nuns in my school and that seemed reasonable at the time as they were lovely caring teachers.  
If you are lucky enough to have an intelligent, hard-working monarch that you can respect as a human being does it make it seem less, um, feudal? 
I'm sorry, I can't think of another word.

-
-


----------



## maxiogee

In another forum I used to frequent, this was discussed…

"In 1983, the British government rightly decided that the term 'subject' was a somewhat ridiculous term to describe born or naturalised residents of the United Kingdom and since that year, the term has no legal meaning and is never used.  Indeed...long before 1983 the world 'citizen' to describe Britons was in totally regular use, both informally and legally."


----------



## coconutpalm

Actually, I think the key to this question is "whether you live better/ you think you live better than before".
China is a developing country. There are too many problems to solve. Many of us don't think we are leading a life good enough. If you are in China, you can often hear people talking about their longings for Tang Dynasty, the glorious ages in China's history and we think people at that time were living a far better life than we do.
We don't really want to be in a monarchy, but we do admire the prosperity of Tang.


----------



## natasha2000

Personally, I think that monarchies and kings and queens are history, and they should stay there. Observing the constitutional monarchies, (not those in Saudi Arabia etc), it is only a waste of a great deal of taxpayers money. Citizens do not live neither better nor worse than in other, republic countries. Furthermore, I am really fond of King of Spain, I find him very "populistic", not stiffed as English queen and princes, but still don't think that in 21st century someone should live on taxpayers money just because has "royal blood in their veins". And thinking it better, not even that, since the youngest heiress of Spanish throne is only 50% royal ... 

On the other hand, tradition plays a big role in people's deciding to quit being monarchies and become republics. Here in Spain, I have the impression that there are a lot of people who don't like the fact that the king is spending their money, but deep in their hearts they are proud of being kingdom, they are proud of having this king, and they accept the royal family as a inseparable part of their Spanish being...

Personally, the most painful thing for me when it comes to monarchies is the money they spend without earning it in any way except being "royal"...


----------



## diegodbs

Natasha, my being a Spaniard has nothing to do with monarchies or this king. I wouldn't be able to clearly define what  "being a Spaniard" is aside from the fact that I was born here, but if I had to make a list monarchy wouldn't belong in that list. 
Olive oil, Velázquez or La Alhambra are nearer the truth of what "being a Spaniard" means for me.


----------



## natasha2000

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Natasha, my being a Spaniard has nothing to do with monarchies or this king. I wouldn't be able to clearly define what "being a Spaniard" is aside from the fact that I was born here, but if I had to make a list monarchy wouldn't belong in that list.
> Olive oil, Velázquez or La Alhambra are nearer the truth of what "being a Spaniard" means for me.


 
Diego, I was talking about my impression that I have when talking bout king and monarchy with other Spaniards...
Of course there are people like you, and being Spaniard for sure does not mean only being a monarchy, but then, seeing all the fuss about the heiress birth, and before that, about the prince's wedding, I see that in this country monarchy is an important part of a tradition and the general feeling of "being Spaniard". Otherwise, why there hasn't been any type of discussion anywhere in changing monarchy for republic? Or Spaniards only talk but deep in their hearts they don't mind paying Leonor's mother cells.
Sorry, I don't pretend to JUDGE anything and anyone, and  ask you please not to feel judged, but this is my PERSONAL impression I got from what i see and hear here.


----------



## diegodbs

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Diego, I was talking about my impression that I have when talking bout king and monarchy with other Spaniards...
> Of course there are people like you, and being Spaniard for sure does not mean only being a monarchy, but then, seeing all the fuss about the heiress birth, and before that, about the prince's wedding, I see that in this country monarchy is an important part of a tradition and the general feeling of "being Spaniard". Otherwise, why there hasn't been any type of discussion anywhere in changing monarchy for republic? Or Spaniards only talk but deep in their hearts they don't mind paying Leonor's mother cells.
> Sorry, I don't pretend to JUDGE anything and anyone, and ask you please not to feel judged, but this is my PERSONAL impression I got from what i see and hear here.


 
Of course not, Natasha. I don't feel judged.

As for the other question about why there has not been a discussion about changing monarchy, perhaps it had something to do with the fact that 20 years ago democracy was what really mattered and not monarchy versus republic. Nowadays I would prefer a republic, but living in a constitutional monarchy doesn't make me feel frustrated or angered.


----------



## natasha2000

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Of course not, Natasha. I don't feel judged.
> 
> As for the other question about why there has not been a discussion about changing monarchy, perhaps it had something to do with the fact that 20 years ago democracy was what really mattered and not monarchy versus republic. Nowadays I would prefer a republic, but living in a constitutional monarchy doesn't make me feel frustrated or angered.


 
Well, I am sure it had a lot to do with this, but 20 years ago... And you don't have to feel frustrated or angered because of something in order to decide to change it. Besides, you (I'm talking in general, all people living in Spain, not only you) don't have any reason to feel frustrated or angered by existence of monarchy in Spain, since, as I already said, there is no difference between a monarchy in Spain and Republic in, for example, France. People live in the same way. THE ONLY difference is that in France there is no person who spends public money only because of his royal blood. 
Doesn't this bother you? I mean, knowing that your money is spent to very accomodated life of Royal Family, when it can be used for many other, more important things?


----------



## Outsider

nokeeffe99 said:
			
		

> From what I see, citizens of monarchies frequently debate whether or not they should become republics (e.g. UK, Spain).
> 
> As far as I can tell, citizens of republics never even consider the idea of becoming monarchies.
> 
> Any nominations for King of America???


They already have one. 

Actually, there's a group of people in Portugal who would like us to be a monarchy again. There's even a monarchist party. But you're still basically right. They get a minute percentage of the votes, and no one even talks much about the matter, in the day-to-day.

About the most seductive argument I've heard for the return to a monarchy is that an aristocracy might take better care of our monuments than the bourgeousie has.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> They already have one.
> 
> Actually, there's a group of people in Portugal who would like us to be a monarchy again. There's even a monarchist party. But you're still basically right. They get a minute percentage of the votes, and no one even talks much about the matter, in the day-to-day.
> 
> About the most seductive argument I've heard for the return to a monarchy is that an aristocracy might take better care of our monuments than the bourgeousie has.


 
Same in Serbia. And I consider it ridiculous, especially with the communist past of the country. We have lived almost 60 years without kings, and our heir doesn't even speak Serbian as a Serbian!!! I think this would be giving steps back in history....
Luckily, I don't think too many people in Serbia are fond of the idea... Mostly because of the money thing I have already mentioned...


----------



## cuchuflete

Any nominations for King of America???

You mean a person who follows his father as head of state.

We have a candidate.  He has nominated himself.

In the 1770s our King was George III. He was our Head of State.   Then came George Washington, affectionately called King George by some.  He too was our Head of State.

Many years later (The Period of Restoration??) we had a Head of State named George Herbert Walker Bush--  George II.

Now we have the son of George II as Head of State.

So, as you can see, we are back to George III.  

I look forward to the day when we are a republic again.


----------



## Mei

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Doesn't this bother you? I mean, knowing that your money is spent to very accomodated life of Royal Family, when it can be used for many other, more important things?



It bothers me... just my opinion... 

Mei


----------



## Fernando

No, it does not bother me. It is a representation expenditure so useful as:

- Spanish Embassies (they are not in the business centers but in the most expensive buildings)
- Spanish Parlament (it should be located in Ciudad Real, not in downtown Madrid).
- Madrid City Hall (in the best building of Madrid, why not in Vallecas?)
...


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> No, it does not bother me. It is a representation expenditure so useful as:
> 
> - Spanish Embassies (they are not in the business centers but in the most expensive buildings)
> - Spanish Parlament (it should be located in Ciudad Real, not in downtown Madrid).
> - Madrid City Hall (in the best building of Madrid, why not in Vallecas?)
> ...


 
How one King can be useful? I am curious to know.


----------



## Fernando

The same way as having the Parlament in Alcalá street and not in Carabanchel.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> The same way as having the Parlament in Alcalá street and not in Carabanchel.


 
This was the answer to my question?


----------



## diegodbs

> Doesn't this bother you? I mean, knowing that your money is spent to very accomodated life of Royal Family, when it can be used for many other, more important things?


 
Yes, it bothers me because I am not for monarchy and the *7 million euros* they receive from our taxes. But it bothers me a lot more, it even angers me, this:

*



			Las tropas españolas en Irak sufrieron 90 ataques 'reseñables' entre agosto de 2003 y mayo de 2004 en los que murieron 9 militares y 18 fueron heridos, según una respuesta parlamentaria a IU-ICV en la que además se cifra en 259,55 millones de euros (43.500 millones de pesetas) el 'coste económico final'.
		
Click to expand...

 
In a referendum monarchy vs republic I'd vote for republic, but I must admit that 30 years of monarchy have been cheaper than one year in Irak.
*


----------



## natasha2000

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Yes, it bothers me because I am not for monarchy and the *7 million euros* they receive from our taxes. But it bothers me a lot more, it even angers me, this:
> 
> 
> 
> *In a referendum monarchy vs republic I'd vote for republic, but I must admit that 30 years of monarchy have been cheaper than one year in Irak.*


 
You're completely right and I couldn't agree with you more, but then I think this is completely another issue. Imagine then how pissed should be Americans since as I heard, the money that is spend for ONE day in Iraq, would be enough to repair the dikes in New Orleans and the desaster with Katarina could have been avoided... The question is here the money that is spent by royal family, and if it pays off or not.


----------



## timpeac

Hi - I'd just like to stress a little bit more than above, perhaps, that many of the monarchies in the world - and particularly those listed as "acceptable" ones have real power very much in name only.

The Queen must agree the new laws proposed by _her_ government and theoretically has the right to refuse to do so. If she ever did though, I am sure a quick and relatively bloodless revolution would occur sweeping the system away. In the UK the royal family are very much for show only, and the system of priviledge they head up is largely toothless as well.

Personally I am against a monarchy. I completely agree with Maxiogee 





> I cannot justify anyone having 'station' over someone else because their ancestors won certain battles hundreds of years ago, or worse, because they married someone's brother/sister.


 Such a system in a democracy seems indefensible to me.

People try to defend it, of course, and the only two defences of this "show" monarchy that I can see is the fact that they create more wealth through tourism than they cost us and that they do a lot of good work for charity. For the first one - I'm not sure how much tourism we would loose if we didn't have an active monarchy, I'm not convinced. For the second - well rich people without proper jobs are always going to have time on their hands - I can't see charities suffering in the long run. Even if either of these "reasons" were tenable I'm not sure they can or should over-ride sentiments in my quote of Maxiogee there.

In countries that have a fully working powerful monarchical system of priviledge then I find that utterly unacceptable. This is basically because I believe in democracy, and I don't see how you can have a truely democratic society under a monarchy. The best you can do is cheat the system and detooth them as we have done in my country.


----------



## natasha2000

timpeac said:
			
		

> Hi - I'd just like to stress a little bit more than above, perhaps, that many of the monarchies in the world - and particularly those listed as "acceptable" ones have real power very much in name only.
> 
> The Queen must agree the new laws proposed by _her_ government and theoretically has the right to refuse to do so. If she ever did though, I am sure a quick and relatively bloodless revolution would occur sweeping the system away. In the UK the royal family are very much for show only, and the system of priviledge they head up is largely toothless as well.
> 
> Personally I am against a monarchy. I completely agree with Maxiogee Such a system in a democracy seems indefensible to me.
> 
> People try to defend it, of course, and the only two defences of this "show" monarchy that I can see is the fact that they create more wealth through tourism than they cost us and that they do a lot of good work for charity. For the first one - I'm not sure how much tourism we would loose if we didn't have an active monarchy, I'm not convinced. For the second - well rich people without proper jobs are always going to have time on their hands - I can't see charities suffering in the long run. Even if either of these "reasons" were tenable I'm not sure they can or should over-ride sentiments in my quote of Maxiogee there.
> 
> In countries that have a fully working powerful monarchical system of priviledge then I find that utterly unacceptable. This is basically because I believe in democracy, and I don't see how you can have a truely democratic society under a monarchy. The best you can do is cheat the system and detooth them as we have done in my country.


 
That is precisely the point of my question to which I am still waiting for the answer....

If Royalties do not have any real power in the state, how they can be useful? If Fernando doen't feel like answering, I don't mind if anyone else answers really...


----------



## Gustavoang

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Otherwise, why there hasn't been any type of discussion anywhere in changing monarchy for republic? Or Spaniards only talk but deep in their hearts they don't mind paying Leonor's mother cells.



There exists movements against monarchy (such as "Contra la monarquía"), but I think they aren't persistent enough.

Anyway, it doesn't seem to be easy to do so, either because of your compatriots or *your own* Civil Guard.


----------



## diegodbs

Natasha, I know my previous post was perhaps off topic. What I was trying to convey is that sometimes it is not easy to say "yes, it bothers me" or "no, it doesn't". Sometimes you feel inclined to say "yes, it bothers me, but as compared to what?"

How can monarchies be useful? Here and now, in Spain? I don't know. I can see no reason why Spanish monarchy is useful.


----------



## natasha2000

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Natasha, I know my previous post was perhaps off topic. What I was trying to convey is that sometimes it is not easy to say "yes, it bothers me" or "no, it doesn't". Sometimes you feel inclined to say "yes, it bothers me, but as compared to what?"
> 
> How can monarchies be useful? Here and now, in Spain? I don't know. I can see no reason why Spanish monarchy is useful.


 
My question was provoked by something what Fernando said:


> It is a representation expenditure so *useful* as:


 
Yes, here in this world and now. Not only in Spain, but in general. And of course, you cannot give me the answer, since you don't consider them useful. The answer should be given by someone who thinks monarchies are useful.


----------



## timpeac

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> My question was provoked by something what Fernando said:
> 
> 
> Yes, here in this world and now. Not only in Spain, but in general. And of course, you cannot give me the answer, since you don't consider them useful. The answer should be given by someone who thinks monarchies are useful.


I gave a couple - promoting tourism and leading charitable actions (although I am anti-monarchist!)

Reading the posts since a third springs to mind - having a reasonable set-up to move to in replacement. It would be a huge cost and amount of work to remove the monarchy and install a republic in my country. Perhaps the unfairness of a monarchy, albeit a nominal one, is not such as to warrant such an input of resources at this time.


----------



## natasha2000

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> There exists movements against monarchy (such as "Contra la monarquía"), but I think they aren't persistent enough.
> 
> Anyway, it doesn't seem to be easy to do so, either because of your compatriots or *your own* Civil Guard.


 
I am aware of the existence of such movements, but they are not heard at all in media and in public. The "main stream" glorifies and cherishes the Spanish monarchy. I have neve rheard in TV or radio or read in the newspaper something that even insinuates the questioning of the monarchy existence. Again, I am talking from my experience here in Spain, and in a period of 6 years that I have been living here....


----------



## diegodbs

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> There exists movements against monarchy (such as "Contra la monarquía"), but I think they aren't persistent enough.
> 
> Anyway, it doesn't seem to be easy to do so, either because of your compatriots or *your own* Civil Guard.


 
As the Civil Guard is not "the law" in Spain and doesn't rule the country, the case will be taken to court and there it will be decided who broke the law, the demonstrators (if they acted violently) or the police agents (if accused of brutality).


----------



## natasha2000

timpeac said:
			
		

> I gave a couple - promoting tourism and leading charitable actions (although I am anti-monarchist!)
> 
> Reading the posts since a third springs to mind - having a reasonable set-up to move to in replacement. It would be a huge cost and amount of work to remove the monarchy and install a republic in my country. Perhaps the unfairness of a monarchy, albeit a nominal one, is not such as to warrant such an input of resources at this time.


 
Hm... cheritable actions are done in republics too, so it is not a priviledge of Royalties... 
And tourism... hmm.. maybe you are right... It is true that all palaces visited by millions of tourists bring a lot of money, but they also demand maintenance, so I would say they pay themselves their own maintenance, and that's all. Or they earn more than that? 

Why it should be a huge cost? Simply stop paying your queen, and let her earn her pension.... (sorry, maybe it is a bad joke, but I couldn't resist)

The thing is that people who don't have monarchies see things different... It is neither bad or good, it is just.... Different...


----------



## maxiogee

You cannot validly argue that money spent on a monarchy could/would be better spent elsewhere —> all money spent by a government could and would be better spent in different ways, it depends on one's priorities.
The question is, if given the money, would a government actually spend it any more wisely than on a monarchy?
In a real monarchy (one where the monarch has actual power) would the amount expended be less than the cost of running elections for head-of-state? 
Would the buying of political patronage be more overt and less corrupt?
What advantages would anyone wish to see accrue to their state from switching the way they are governed at present to the other kind… How would Americans like to see America change if there were to be a monarch… How would the Spanish wish to see Spain change if the King abdicated in favour of a directly elected head-of-state?


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You cannot validly argue that money spent on a monarchy could/would be better spent elsewhere —> all money spent by a government could and would be better spent in different ways, it depends on one's priorities.
> The question is, if given the money, would a government actually spend it any more wisely than on a monarchy?
> In a real monarchy (one where the monarch has actual power) would the amount expended be less than the cost of running elections for head-of-state?
> Would the buying of political patronage be more overt and less corrupt?
> What advantages would anyone wish to see accrue to their state from switching the way they are governed at present to the other kind… How would Americans like to see America change if there were to be a monarch… How would the Spanish wish to see Spain change if the King abdicated in favour of a directly elected head-of-state?


 
I don't pretend to argue that. I know that gouvernments are also able to spend huge amounts of money for nothing, Diego gave an excellent example...
I am referring to constitutional monarchies, not the real ones, since the real ones I consider equal as any other totalitarity regime... It can be called King or Generalissimo or whatever, the basis is the same: It's a dictator. 
And as far as the vision of some monarchy as a republic, it is the decision of the people who live in the country in question, isn't it? Maybe they don't even have one. At the end, it is on them to decide.


----------



## Gustavoang

diegodbs said:
			
		

> As the Civil Guard is not "the law" in Spain and doesn't rule the country, the case will be taken to court and there it will be decided who broke the law, the demonstrators (if they acted violently) or the police agents (if accused of brutality).



I know, but there're 2 versions:

Some people insulted them *first*.
The Civil Guard attacked them *first*.

The fact is that their point of view was not respected, _either because of their compatriots or their own Civil Guard_.


----------



## maxiogee

Any monarchy other than an absolute one is only window dressing.
What difference does it make to a Briton if Tony Blair (or whoever) is called President or Prime Minister - the country would still be the same.

And I wonder does the "It brings in tourism revenues" really have any basis in fact, but we can never know. I feel that many people who go to Britain as tourists are not just going because there is a monarchy, but because there is a wealth of history involved in the very fabric of society.
Did tourism to Spain boom because the monarchy was restored, or did it boom because a different style of rule was introduced, or did it even boom at all?
Can anyone prove that monarchs bring in tourists?

Is the House of Windsor anything more than the comfortable old clothes one wears for gardening —> not something one is proud of, but something one is very comfortable in, and good for the job in hand?


----------



## Gustavoang

By the way, Vince was the one who talked about the fact of having a foreign as Monarch... Do you find it fair? I don't think so, It doesn't even make sense to me.


----------



## diegodbs

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> I know, but there're 2 versions:
> 
> Some people insulted them *first*.
> The Civil Guard attacked them *first*.
> The fact is that their point of view was not respected, _either because of their compatriots or their own Civil Guard_.


Of course I don't know what actually happened there. But I insist, if the Guardia Civil did not respect the right of peaceful demonstrators to stand there with republican banners, the agents will have to appear in court.


----------



## maxiogee

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> By the way, Vince was the one who talked about the fact of having a foreign as Monarch... Do you find it fair? I don't think so, It doesn't even make sense to me.



Monarchs have routinely been foreign in Europe. That's what war was all about in the past. Nicking next-door's land (and, of course, their tax-payers!)


----------



## diegodbs

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> By the way, Vince was the one who talked about the fact of having a foreign as Monarch... Do you find it fair? I don't think so, It doesn't even make sense to me.


 
Kings of Spain:

Calos I (1500-1558) born in Gante (The Low Countries)
Felipe V (1700-1746) born in France
Amadeo de Saboya (1845-1890) born in Italy.

As I am against monarchy I don't care if the king is born in my country or not. If I were for monarchy, exactly the same, I think jingoism is senseless.


----------



## Fernando

Juan Carlos I was born in Rome, but (as far as I know) was Spanish from the beginning. I am unsure about Carlos IV (I think he was born in Naples), but in both cases their connections with Spain were overwhelming.

I would agree with diegodbs that those named by him are the only foreigner Spanish kings.


----------



## vince

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> But, you think they should exist although several things must change? Nowaday, what do people profit from monarchy?



I never said they should exist, I said that if a population insists on a monarchy, it should be as minimal as possible.

One of the main reasons for keeping a monarchy is "inertia" - resistance to change. Not just by people afraid of what may happen with a President, but due to the necessity of changing the Constitution. In Canada, the whole legal and political system is structured around the Crown. Everything will have to be changed if Canada were to become a republic. And in places like Canada where the political process is slow, bureaucratic, and money-wasting, there is little will to do an overhaul of anything, let alone a change as substantial as electing a head of state.

If you think it's bad that Spain had a couple of foreign heads of state, consider this: the King/Queen of Canada has never been born in Canada. I don't think any of them have spent more than 0.1% of their life here. But they are legally Canadian because of our Constitution, they are symbols of Canada, which does not make any sense.

I think monarchism is generally popular in places where:
1.) There has recently been a brutal dictatorship in a country that once had a monarchy (e.g. Spain a couple decades ago)
2.) The king is a very popular persona who has done and said things that give him international respect (e.g. Thailand)
3.) The United States is next door, your culture and language is completely Americanized, and you are clinging on to the monarchy and your country's "British heritage" as a way to distinguish yourself from them. (you can guess which country I am referring to)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Of course not, Natasha. I don't feel judged.
> 
> As for the other question about why there has not been a discussion about changing monarchy, perhaps it had something to do with the fact that 20 years ago democracy was what really mattered and not monarchy versus republic. Nowadays I would prefer a republic, but living in a constitutional monarchy doesn't make me feel frustrated or angered.


Hi Diego,

I found your post very interesting. What do you think would be better if Spain were a Republic? Looking from the perspective of an outsider (perhaps the grass is always greener on the other side) I see a Spain that has been getting economically stronger ever since I can remember. No solo del pan vive el hombre, [Man does not live on bread alone] but I was curious about your statement that you would prefer a Republic because it's hard for me to imagine that it would change anything in the lives of everyday people in Spain.


----------



## diegodbs

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Hi Diego,
> 
> I found your post very interesting. What do you think would be better if Spain were a Republic? Looking from the perspective of an outsider (perhaps the grass is always greener on the other side) I see a Spain that has been getting economically stronger ever since I can remember. No solo del pan vive el hombre, [Man does not live on bread alone] but I was curious about your statement that you would prefer a Republic because it's hard for me to imagine that it would change anything in the lives of everyday people in Spain.


I agree with you, Residente. Never has Spain enjoyed a period of such stability and a certain prosperity as compared to our recent or distant past, and monarchy has played a role because it ended up the old and senseless quarrel between monarchy and republic. The true battle is between democracy and tyranny.

When I said I'd prefer a republic I just got carried away by my own personal feelings about "La República" (1931-1936). I know it's not fair to mix data with personal feelings, but it's only human


----------



## maxiogee

On the subject of Spanish democracy I'd like to mark the passing of the last surviving Irishman to have fought in the 15th International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War - *Michael O'Riordan*.

He joined the Communist Party of Ireland in 1935 while still in the IRA and worked on the communist newspaper Socialist Voice. In 1936 he was one of the mostly IRA or ex-IRA men who went to fight for the Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War with the XVth International Brigade. O'Riordan accompanied a party led by Frank Ryan. He saw action on all fronts and was wounded in the the battle of Ebro.

His funeral will take place in Dublin tomorrow.


----------



## Pivra

I like living in a constitutional monarchy countries but not absolute monarchy.


----------



## jimreilly

One cannot generalize, as several people have already pointed out.  Norway has a monarchy and it is far more egalitarian than the United States. My principles favor a republic, and I think maintaining palaces for kings and queens to live in would not be a good use of tax money. But plenty of my tax money in the USA goes for things I don't like, things far more wasteful and less egalitarian than a palace in Oslo.

One could argue in similar ways about supporting a state church. Nominal freedom of religion does not guarantee that churches will not try to interfere with the freedom of citizens who are not members of those churches. And a state church doesn't guarantee an inquisition or oppression. I would rather not have state church, but....


----------



## la reine victoria

As La Reine Victoria I feel I must make a comment or two.

The chief reason why I favour the Monarchy stems from my love of Britain's history and heritage. My keywords are *continuation *and *conservatism*.

Why should we break with a tradition which has endured for over a thousand years? What do the Britsh people feel about the continuation of the monarchy?

A recent poll by Britain's most popular tabloid newspaper, The Sun, gave this result:

*1. Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?*
Republic: 18%
*Monarchy: 72%*
Don't know: 10% (Source)

The argument about the cost of maintaing the monarchy holds no water in Britain. At 61 pence (less than one pound) per person per annum it is loose change. Just over a penny per week.

The Queen is also a tax payer. She is repaying us the cost of restoring Windsor Castle, after the devastating fire of 1992, by opening all her residences to the paying public who apparently delight in visiting them, particularly foreign tourists.

I was enchanted to be allowed into Balmoral Castle where there was a magnificent exhibition of Victoria and Albert's personal possessions. Being allowed to freely wander the grounds of the Estate enabled my mind to link in with Victoria and Albert and their nine children, the famous John Brown, King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, King George V and Queen Mary, Edward VIII, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the shrewd old Queen Mum) and our present Royal Family. Not forgetting the royalty of Europe and Russia - all related to Queen Victoria.

Call me a sentimental old fool (I probably am) but these things are important to me. The time scale at Balmoral Castle is very brief, 1854 to date, yet it charts a great deal of modern Royal history.

Being able to go back further in time, by visiting other historic buildings, appeals enormously to my sense of heritage and continuation. Foreign tourists, whom I've met at these places, have told me how envious they were of "all this history".

(Sorry USA, but the funniest comment I ever heard came from a group of your people. I was working on an excavation at a prehistoric henge, known as Woodhenge, in Wiltshire, not far from Stonehenge. A road passes right beside it. The American tourists stopped to ask what we were investigating and we told them. One of them said, "How clever of them to have built it by the roadside!")

So, yes, the fact that we are a monarchy does bring in tourists - not just intertested in our present Queen but in all the royal and non-royal history which has gone before her.

Privileged and wealthy? I wouldn't consider it a privilege to be a monarch, pursued everywhere by the paparazzi who make a small fortune by selling their photographs to newspapers and magazines who know that "Royalty sells". Despatch Boxes from the government, matters of state to attend to every day, even while on holiday. Presiding over banquets, meeting heads of the Commonwealth, undertaking arduous foreign tours which are planned by others, having to smile and wave to the cheering crowds, meeting the Prime Minister thumbsdow ) every Tuesday evening when you could be putting your feet up and watching Emmerdale and Eastenders on TV (Brits will know what I mean), opening Parliament and having to read a speech, carefully prepared by T. Blair (with whom you probably strongly disagree), etc. etc. Nah! Give me the simple life.

Wealthy? What does wealth mean when you have so much money that you don't know what to do with it? When you have everything you could ever need? When people are at a loss as to what to buy you for your birthday or for Christmas? Mind you, I've heard that our dear Queen likes nothing more than to send a servant out to the local chippy (fish and chip shop) now and again for a bag of cod and chips to enjoy while watching the "telly".

But the pomp and circumstance, the pageantry, the wonderful sight of Trooping the Colour, the changing of the guard, the moving Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph, the music - bring it all on, I just love it.

All this would be gone if we became a republic.  Since it appears that about 75% of us feel the same way I say "God Save the Queen" and "Good luck" to the next monarch and all who follow in succession.  Let's continue this wonderful tradition which appears to fascinate most of the world.

And, please, let us retain the right to fly the flags of St. George of England, St. Andrew of Scotland, the Welsh Dragon, the Union Flag, from our rooftops.  The political kerrektness lobby tell us it is an insult to immigrant ethnic minorities.  Pish!

I may be considered "batty".  My problem is that I have what is called "soul" - all that has gone before is precious to me and I am proud of Britain and her heritage.



LRV


----------



## natasha2000

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> As La Reine Victoria I feel I must make a comment or two.
> 
> The chief reason why I favour the Monarchy stems from my love of Britain's history and heritage. My keywords are *continuation *and *conservatism*.
> 
> Why should we break with a tradition which has endured for over a thousand years? What do the Britsh people feel about the continuation of the monarchy?
> 
> A recent poll by Britain's most popular tabloid newspaper, The Sun, gave this result:
> 
> *1. Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?*
> Republic: 18%
> *Monarchy: 72%*
> Don't know: 10% (Source)
> 
> The argument about the cost of maintaing the monarchy holds no water in Britain. At 61 pence (less than one pound) per person per annum it is loose change. Just over a penny per week.
> 
> The Queen is also a tax payer. She is repaying us the cost of restoring Windsor Castle, after the devastating fire of 1992, by opening all her residences to the paying public who apparently delight in visiting them, particularly foreign tourists.
> 
> I was enchanted to be allowed into Balmoral Castle where there was a magnificent exhibition of Victoria and Albert's personal possessions. Being allowed to freely wander the grounds of the Estate enabled my mind to link in with Victoria and Albert and their nine children, the famous John Brown, King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, King George V and Queen Mary, Edward VIII, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the shrewd old Queen Mum) and our present Royal Family. Not forgetting the royalty of Europe and Russia - all related to Queen Victoria.
> 
> Call me a sentimental old fool (I probably am) but these things are important to me. The time scale at Balmoral Castle is very brief, 1854 to date, yet it charts a great deal of modern Royal history.
> 
> Being able to go back further in time, by visiting other historic buildings, appeals enormously to my sense of heritage and continuation. Foreign tourists, whom I've met at these places, have told me how envious they were of "all this history".
> 
> (Sorry USA, but the funniest comment I ever heard came from a group of your people. I was working on an excavation at a prehistoric henge, known as Woodhenge, in Wiltshire, not far from Stonehenge. A road passes right beside it. The American tourists stopped to ask what we were investigating and we told them. One of them said, "How clever of them to have built it by the roadside!")
> 
> So, yes, the fact that we are a monarchy does bring in tourists - not just intertested in our present Queen but in all the royal and non-royal history which has gone before her.
> 
> Privileged and wealthy? I wouldn't consider it a privilege to be a monarch, pursued everywhere by the paparazzi who make a small fortune by selling their photographs to newspapers and magazines who know that "Royalty sells". Despatch Boxes from the government, matters of state to attend to every day, even while on holiday. Presiding over banquets, meeting heads of the Commonwealth, undertaking arduous foreign tours which are planned by others, having to smile and wave to the cheering crowds, meeting the Prime Minister thumbsdow ) every Tuesday evening when you could be putting your feet up and watching Emmerdale and Eastenders on TV (Brits will know what I mean), opening Parliament and having to read a speech, carefully prepared by T. Blair (with whom you probably strongly disagree), etc. etc. Nah! Give me the simple life.
> 
> Wealthy? What does wealth mean when you have so much money that you don't know what to do with it? When you have everything you could ever need? When people are at a loss as to what to buy you for your birthday or for Christmas? Mind you, I've heard that our dear Queen likes nothing more than to send a servant out to the local chippy (fish and chip shop) now and again for a bag of cod and chips to enjoy while watching the "telly".
> 
> But the pomp and circumstance, the pageantry, the wonderful sight of Trooping the Colour, the changing of the guard, the moving Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph, the music - bring it all on, I just love it.
> 
> All this would be gone if we became a republic. Since it appears that about 75% of us feel the same way I say "God Save the Queen" and "Good luck" to the next monarch and all who follow in succession. Let's continue this wonderful tradition which appears to fascinate most of the world.
> 
> And, please, let us retain the right to fly the flags of St. George of England, St. Andrew of Scotland, the Welsh Dragon, the Union Flag, from our rooftops. The political kerrektness lobby tell us it is an insult to immigrant ethnic minorities. Pish!
> 
> I may be considered "batty". My problem is that I have what is called "soul" - all that has gone before is precious to me and I am proud of Britain and her heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
Dear Highness (sorry if i don't know how to address a royalty, I come from a communist country )
Thank you for this overwhelming and honest answer... It confirms what i've already said - people who live today in monarchies are so used to it and it forms a part of their tradition, that they are unprepared and unwilling to get rid of it. Even more, the most of them, don't want it, because monarchy is a part of their national being.
In a way, I do understand this kind of feeling of proudness of what one is, and I really do not find anything bad in it. 
But, there is one little thing that confuses me...
Do you really give only 61p per year for Royalties? And does Queen really have her salary? I find it hard to believe...

On the other hand, as far as the Spanish king is concerned, I think he had a decidious role in avoiding bloodshed after Franco's death. He could have impose himself as an absolute monarch, since he was given every right and power by Franco, yet he didn't do it. It is a gesture worth of all respect in the world, I dare to say. 
I think it is not so good to discuss about monarchies in general, since each country has its own history and it's own pro's and contra's. Someone mentioned that people who recently had dictatorship are more propense to like monarchy, but then, the poster of Her Highness shows us completely different picture. England has a looooong democracy tradition, that goes back to 17 centrury and Oliver Cromwell, isn't it? (If I am wrong, please kerrekt me)...


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Do you really give only 61p per year for Royalties?





Quote of the year!


----------



## la reine victoria

> But, there is one little thing that confuses me...
> Do you really give only 61p per year for Royalties? And does Queen really have her salary? I find it hard to believe...


 
Hello Natasha,

Thank you. I'm pleased to know that you understand my feelings about the Monarchy.

Yes, 61p per year is all we pay per person.


> The Royal family costs each of the Queen's subjects just 61 pence a year, accounts reveal - the equivalent of two pints of milk. Source


 
The Queen's annual allowance (not a salary) is from what is known as the Civil List. But she gives a great deal back in profits from the Crown Estate, as Wikipedia explains: Source

This seems like crazy mathematics to me. If you wish to know about the Crown Estate you can find information here.

Compare spending on the futile invasion of Iraq.



> The UK has already spent over £3 billion on the conflict and occupation, which could rise to as much £5 billion by the end of the year. US spending on Iraq has exceeded well over $100 billion and the total cost is expected to be over $200 billion.  Source


 




LRV


----------



## maxiogee

Has anyone calculated what the office of the Presidency of the United States of America (including it's attainment every four years) costs the individual American, on a similar basis to that 61p per person per year for HM ERII?
(I think it should include campaign contributions/expenditure on elections, as the ordinary citizen ends up paying those sums one way or another.)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Has anyone calculated what the office of the Presidency of the United States of America (including it's attainment every four years) costs the individual American, on a similar basis to that 61p per person per year for HM ERII?
> (I think it should include campaign contributions/expenditure on elections, as the ordinary citizen ends up paying those sums one way or another.)



The difference is we _elected _the president. The government costs us money but we choose it. And people in that government pay taxes. They also spend much less time skiing in the Alps.


----------



## natasha2000

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Hello Natasha,
> 
> Thank you. I'm pleased to know that you understand my feelings about the Monarchy.
> 
> Yes, 61p per year is all we pay per person.
> 
> 
> The Queen's annual allowance (not a salary) is from what is known as the Civil List. But she gives a great deal back in profits from the Crown Estate, as Wikipedia explains: Source
> 
> This seems like crazy mathematics to me. If you wish to know about the Crown Estate you can find information here.
> 
> Compare spending on the futile invasion of Iraq.
> 
> LRV


 
Yes, Your Highness, you are absolutely right. Compared to Iraq military engagement of various gouvernments which, bu the way, the citizens of the countries in question didn't even want, the English Queen allowance is ridiculous....


----------



## maxiogee

You do indeed elect the president - and the Britons 'elect' their monarch by the very act of not campaigning for the dissolution of the Monarchy. They disposed of a monarch before in England and know full well that it could happen again. Cromwell's time in charge was not a total disaster - even with a recalcitrant Parliament and disgruntled monarchists around him.

Your presidency is a very expensive prize - and I was just wondering what it cost to attain and maintain.
All countries pay for their governments - we pay twice in Europe. My taxes pay for both the Government here in Ireland and for my share of the European Union.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You do indeed elect the president - and the Britons 'elect' their monarch by the very act of not campaigning for the dissolution of the Monarchy. They disposed of a monarch before in England and know full well that it could happen again. Cromwell's time in charge was not a total disaster - even with a recalcitrant Parliament and disgruntled monarchists around him.
> 
> Your presidency is a very expensive prize - and I was just wondering what it cost to attain and maintain.
> All countries pay for their governments - we pay twice in Europe. My taxes pay for both the Government here in Ireland and for my share of the European Union.



How do you choose somebody by not choosing them? 

And by your logic, Britons pay thrice, Blair, Elizabeth, _and _Brussels.


----------



## maxiogee

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> *1)* How do you choose somebody by not choosing them?
> 
> *2)* And by your logic, Britons pay thrice, Blair, Elizabeth, _and _Brussels.



*1)* You allow them to remain. That's a positive choice which the Australians attempt to make every now and again.

*2) *if you count 61p a year as 'paying' then yes they do, and they get money back from both Elizabeth and Europe!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *1)* You allow them to remain.



I guess you could make the same statement about Fidel Castro in Cuba or Saddam Hussein in Iraq.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I guess you could make the same statement about Fidel Castro in Cuba or Saddam Hussein in Iraq.


 
Oh not quite - I think that if the British people wanted rid of the monarchy we'd have a referendum and it would peacefully happen. I really can't believe there would be any bloodshed at all. I don't think you could say the same about the "people" getting rid of Castro or Hussein. In our case I think if we had an official vote and people were under no pressure either way they might well vote actively for the monarchy. There are no groups seriously calling for its dissolution.


----------



## la reine victoria

> They also spend much less time skiing in the Alps.


 

That'll be the day Residente, when HM whizzes down the slopes.  

Can you honestly say you are as proud of your President as 75% of Brits are of Her Majesty?




LRV


----------



## maxiogee

This feels weird, I'm an Irish guy arguing for the monarchy in Britain. Someone's going to revoke my passport!

I don't recall anyone calling Fidel or Saddam 'monarch' of their countries. The Spanish voted to bring back their monarch, we Irish voted years ago to get rid of our share in the British one


----------



## Residente Calle 13

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> That'll be the day Residente, when HM whizzes down the slopes.
> 
> Can you honestly say you are as proud of your President as 75% of Brits are of Her Majesty?
> 
> LRV



But does that mean monarchy is good. Many Germans were proud of Hitler. I would say more than 75%.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> This feels weird, I'm an Irish guy arguing for the monarchy in Britain. Someone's going to revoke my passport!
> 
> I don't recall anyone calling Fidel or Saddam 'monarch' of their countries. The Spanish voted to bring back their monarch, we Irish voted years ago to get rid of our share in the British one



What I am saying is that both Fidel Castro and Queen Elizabeth have something in common: they are non-elected leaders. They are not removed because people don't remove them. It's very passive. Nobody picked them.

If you live in Cuba and don't like Fidel, tough luck. I live in the US and don't like Bush but if there are enough of us, we can get him impeached. Nixon resigned but it was because alot of people didn't like him and because he knew that staying in office would only get his butt kicked to the curb.  When a monarch abdicates it's a rather different process. You can't remove the Queen the way you remove a president.

There is no way to impeach Fidel and no way to impeach Lizz. If you are a Brit and don't like monarchy and you convince enough Brits, you can get rid of the crown. But if you are a Brit, you like monarchy but don't like _that _Queen you have to wait until she dies unless you speed up that process.

Americans can, collectively, decide they don't like their Bush (not presidents in general) and take steps to remove him. And when Bush leaves office he won't be replaced by one of his (very hot) daughters but by some other idiot who suckers us into picking him or her.

We have stupid presidents and Britain has had stupid monarchs but we pick which ones and they don't stay for life.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that both Fidel Castro and Queen Elizabeth have something in common: they are non-elected leaders. They are not removed because people don't remove them. It's very passive. Nobody picked them.
> 
> If you live in Cuba and don't like Fidel, tough luck. I live in the US and don't like Bush but if there are enough of us, we can get him impeached. Nixon resigned but it was because alot of people didn't like him and because he knew that staying in office would only get his butt kicked to the curb. When a monarch abdicates it's a rather different process. You can't remove the Queen the way you remove a president.
> 
> There is no way to impeach Fidel and no way to impeach Lizz. If you are a Brit and don't like monarchy and you convince enough Brits, you can get rid of the crown. But if you are a Brit, you like monarchy but don't like _that _Queen you have to wait until she dies unless you speed up that process.
> 
> Americans can, collectively, decide they don't like their Bush (not presidents in general) and take steps to remove him. And when Bush leaves office he won't be replaced by one of his (very hot) daughters but by some other idiot who suckers us into picking him or her.
> 
> We have stupid presidents and Britain has had stupid monarchs but we pick which ones and they don't stay for life.


 
You seem to be making two points here, one I agree with and one I don't.



> What I am saying is that both Fidel Castro and Queen Elizabeth have something in common: they are non-elected leaders. They are not removed because people don't remove them. It's very passive. Nobody picked them.


 I'm sure that most Brits don't want to get rid of the queen. So this is not the same. I think most Cubans would want rid of Castro. We Brits could easily and bloodlessly get rid of the Queen. We don't because we (collectively) want to keep her. Cubans don't get rid of Castro because they would need to mount a revolution which would obviously be more difficult all round.



> We have stupid presidents and Britain has had stupid monarchs but we pick which ones and they don't stay for life.


This is true. We don't pick them and they have a life-time incumbancy. But no one seems to mind this, at least so far. When our present queen dies I think this point, if anything, may well spell the end of the monarchy. Prince Charles, the next in line, is very unpopular. People may well not want him for King. William, the one in line after that, is very popular and indeed some people are already talking of skipping Charles for him. To my mind this is a nonsense. The monarchy is what it is. As I have already said I'd be pleased to get rid of the whole lot of them, but I do find it extemely hypocritical of those who want to keep this system but bend the rules to skip Charles. You either have this traditional system steeped in history (for the reasons LRV have given) or you don't...


----------



## la reine victoria

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> But does that mean monarchy is good. Many Germans were proud of Hitler. I would say more than 75%.


 

Poor misguided fools. 3.5 million were killed in action, 4.6 million wounded, 2 million civilians killed. Not to mention the millions who were expelled from Germany at the end of the war when Russia annexed what became Eastern Germany. 

Hitler was a mad opportunist who took advantage of the appalling social and economic conditions at that time.

God bless the souls of the 6 million Jews, and other Germans, who had no say in the matter.

A cheap stunt Residente. You are so obviously anti Monarchy, but since you don't have to live under one why not let it rest? This is getting nasty.



LRV


----------



## Residente Calle 13

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Poor misguided fools. 3.5 million were killed in action, 4.6 million wounded, 2 million civilians killed.  Not to mention the millions who were expelled from Germany at the end of the war.
> 
> Hitler was a mad opportunist who took advantage of the appalling social and economic conditions at that time.
> 
> God bless the souls of the 6 million Jews, and other Germans, who had no say in the matter.
> 
> A cheap stunt Residente.  You are so obviously anti Monarchy, but since you don't have to live under one why not let it rest?  This is getting nasty.
> 
> 
> 
> LRV



No. I'm not anti-monarchy. I think every country has the right to make up their own mind about things like this. If Britons want a Queen, if France doesn't want one, it's up to them and their business. But I don't think the Queen is good for Britain just because 75% of the population are proud of her like you implied.  This does not mean she's not good for Britain. But that's not for me to say and I can't really say that it's something that has me up at night.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> Cubans don't get rid of Castro because they would need to mount a revolution which would obviously be more difficult all round.


I'm not sure that's true. Many dictators have been removed in bloodless coups. Look at what happened in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and at the time there was a Soviet Union with many tanks!

What I believe is that an elected president in our system is more accountable, as a head of state, than a monarch, and I'm glad that we have it that way. I understand the Queen has very little political power in Britain so, looking from the outside, I don't understand what the big deal is.

Being anti-royalist in Britain is not, lucky for you, like being anti-royalist in Nepal which is why I think the question is too broad.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's true. Many dictators have been removed in bloodless coups. Look at what happened in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and at the time there was a Soviet Union with many tanks!


Maybe, but we _know_ we could get rid of them with a simple vote, the Cubans would still be taking a chance. And of course there is the point that we don't want to get rid of our system (generally speaking). I'm sure that if there started to be even the suspicion of a number of people who wanted to end the monarchy we would seriously start to have referenda on the subject.

I view this as similar to the fact that people don't ask us to vote every year if we want a democratic system, or if we want a legal system based on "innocent before proven guilty". What's the point in asking people to vote for something that no one wants and no one is asking for the chance to vote on (although they know full well they could ask for that). There's just no point. Cubans couldn't vote even if they want to (and my uninformed guess is that all things being equal they would very much like that opportunity).

You might vote every few years for _a_ president, but you don't vote every few years on whether you want _any old_ president or not.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> I view this as similar to the fact that people don't ask us to vote every year if we want a democratic system, or if we want a legal system based on "innocent before proven guilty". What's the point in asking people to vote for something that no one wants and no one is asking for the chance to vote on (although they know full well they could ask for that). There's just no point. Cubans couldn't vote even if they want to (and my uninformed guess is that all things being equal they would very much like that opportunity).
> 
> You might vote every few years for _a_ president, but you don't vote every few years on whether you want _any old_ president or not.


Well, Cubans vote. They hold elections regularly. They don't vote on whether or not to get rid of Fidel Castro or socialism for the same reasons we don't vote on "innocent before proven guilty" or "representative democracy" every year in Britain and America. What's the point in asking people to vote for something that no one wants and no one is asking for the chance to vote on (although they know full well they could ask for that).


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Well, Cubans vote. They hold elections regularly. They don't vote on whether or not to get rid of Fidel Castro or socialism for the same reasons we don't vote on "innocent before proven guilty" or "representative democracy" every year in Britain and America. What's the point in asking people to vote for something that no one wants and no one is asking for the chance to vote on (although they know full well they could ask for that).


I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that most, nay the vast majority of, Cubans support Castro and his regime? Well, this is risking getting off-topic, but I didn't meet_ any_ when I was there who supported him.
Well, OK then - _if _you believe that all Cubans are equally happy having Castro (and his son when he dies, since it seems he's being groomed for the position) as the British are in having the queen then I agree that the two systems are parallel. Personally, though, I think they are as different as chalk and cheese.


----------



## vince

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> As La Reine Victoria I feel I must make a comment or two.
> 
> The chief reason why I favour the Monarchy stems from my love of Britain's history and heritage. My keywords are *continuation *and *conservatism*.
> 
> Why should we break with a tradition which has endured for over a thousand years? What do the Britsh people feel about the continuation of the monarchy?



If Britain ends the monarchy, that does not mean that they just threw 1000+ years of history down the drain. The history and the written records remain. The palaces and royal monuments are still there for all to see.



> The argument about the cost of maintaing the monarchy holds no water in Britain. At 61 pence (less than one pound) per person per annum it is loose change. Just over a penny per week.



61 pence per year times 60.5 million, that's 36 million pounds a year. Why are British people giving Elizabeth and her family 36 million pounds per year instead of to you, me, or any other person? What did she do to deserve this money? Does she really need this much money to sustain her family and royal functions?



> The Queen is also a tax payer. She is repaying us the cost of restoring Windsor Castle, after the devastating fire of 1992, by opening all her residences to the paying public who apparently delight in visiting them, particularly foreign tourists.
> 
> 
> I was enchanted to be allowed into Balmoral Castle where there was a magnificent exhibition of Victoria and Albert's personal possessions. Being allowed to freely wander the grounds of the Estate enabled my mind to link in with Victoria and Albert and their nine children, the famous John Brown, King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, King George V and Queen Mary, Edward VIII, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the shrewd old Queen Mum) and our present Royal Family. Not forgetting the royalty of Europe and Russia - all related to Queen Victoria.
> 
> Call me a sentimental old fool (I probably am) but these things are important to me. The time scale at Balmoral Castle is very brief, 1854 to date, yet it charts a great deal of modern Royal history.
> 
> Being able to go back further in time, by visiting other historic buildings, appeals enormously to my sense of heritage and continuation. Foreign tourists, whom I've met at these places, have told me how envious they were of "all this history".



If the monarchy is ended, the paying public will still be able to delight in visiting her residences. People can still visit former royal castles and palaces in other countries who have not had a monarch in years.




> Privileged and wealthy? I wouldn't consider it a privilege to be a monarch, pursued everywhere by the paparazzi who make a small fortune by selling their photographs to newspapers and magazines who know that "Royalty sells". Despatch Boxes from the government, matters of state to attend to every day, even while on holiday. Presiding over banquets, meeting heads of the Commonwealth, undertaking arduous foreign tours which are planned by others, having to smile and wave to the cheering crowds, meeting the Prime Minister thumbsdow ) every Tuesday evening when you could be putting your feet up and watching Emmerdale and Eastenders on TV (Brits will know what I mean), opening Parliament and having to read a speech, carefully prepared by T. Blair (with whom you probably strongly disagree), etc. etc. Nah! Give me the simple life.
> 
> Wealthy? What does wealth mean when you have so much money that you don't know what to do with it? When you have everything you could ever need? When people are at a loss as to what to buy you for your birthday or for Christmas? Mind you, I've heard that our dear Queen likes nothing more than to send a servant out to the local chippy (fish and chip shop) now and again for a bag of cod and chips to enjoy while watching the "telly".



I'm sorry, but this is just a defense of the generic "being rich and famous isn't what it's cracked up to be". Your arguments work for anyone rich and famous, movie stars, pop singers, they all face paparazzi, tight schedules, loss of personal privacy, public appearances when all you want to do is go to bed. They also have so much money they don't know what to do with it. But most of us would much rather be rich and famous than lead our anonymous lives. So I don't see your point.

The difference is that  with celebrities,  if they gamble all their money away, they won't leave anything for their children and the children are back to square one. Whereas with the royal family, you can spend spend spend, but you know your descendants will still be rich royals.



> And, please, let us retain the right to fly the flags of St. George of England, St. Andrew of Scotland, the Welsh Dragon, the Union Flag, from our rooftops.  The political kerrektness lobby tell us it is an insult to immigrant ethnic minorities.  Pish!



Having a republic does not take away the right to do these things.

What do you think about Canada and Commonwealth nations keeping the same monarch as the UK?


----------



## nokeeffe99

The last few threads are missing a small, though important, point. You can't compare Queen Liz with Fidel or Saddam for the reason that in most monarcies, the monarch is a symbolic though powerless head of state. 

In fact this is also the case for the president of quite a few republics (e.g. Ireland, Germany, Israel)  where the real power is with the Prime Minister and the government.

I presume that Fidel and his ilk have far greater than cermonial powers...


----------



## la reine victoria

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> No. I'm not anti-monarchy. I think every country has the right to make up their own mind about things like this. If Britons want a Queen, if France doesn't want one, it's up to them and their business. But I don't think the Queen is good for Britain just because 75% of the population are proud of her like you implied. This does not mean she's not good for Britain. But that's not for me to say and I can't really say that it's *something that has me up at night*.


 

I'm pleased to hear it.  And I can sleep happily knowing that my country is glad to be a monarchy and is proud of its very ancient culture and heritage.  Not that I pay special attention to this at bedtime, you understand.  I'm too busy fantasizing about the wonderful, handsome GWB.  





LRV


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that most Cubans support Castro and his regime? Well, this is risking getting off-topic, but I didn't meet_ any_ when I was there who supported him.
> Well, OK then - _if _you believe that all Cubans are equally happy having Castro (and his son when he dies, since it seems he's being groomed for the position) as the British are in having the queen then I agree that the two systems are parallel. Personally, though, I think they are as different as chalk and cheese.



And you are right; they _*are* _very different. When Castro makes a mistake, all of Cuba can be seriously hurt. The Queen of England is a ceremonial figure; only egos are bruised when she slips up. Both live lavish lifestyles on the back of the common man. Our president gets to live in a mansion, will get a decent pension and body guards for life, and a has the use of a private jet, helicopter and a limo (all at taxpayer's expense) but I don't think that's the main issue.

I don't think monarchy is good for a country, or that any leader is good for a country, just because that leader is popular or because the system is. Some popular things are bad. 

I don't think monarchy is good because of tradition. We all know of traditions that are abhorant and that we are glad we've gotten rid of. 

I don't think we give elected presidents the same priviledges that we give monarchs so those parallels are kind of misleading. When Bush's son took power it was because he was elected (well, sort of) under our system. It was not because he was somebody's son. If one of his daughters went bezerk and decide to kill a dozen or so people, she would not end up as head of state as has happened in Nepal and Saudi Arabia. 

If we really don't like Bush, we can, collectively, fire him without abolishing the presidency. I'm not aware of a mechanism in your country for getting rid of a Queen you don't like while leaving the crown in place. But that's not something I know much about.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> If we really don't like Bush, we can, collectively, fire him without abolishing the presidency. I'm not aware of a mechanism in your country for getting rid of a Queen you don't like while leaving the crown in place. But that's not something I know much about.


The time-honoured one is to execute them! I'm not being flippant - the usual way to change kings (I'm not talking about getting rid of the whole system) was to murder the one you didn't like. And, as a nod towards LRV's history, I see no reason to buck the trend now.

Seriously - the truth (I hope others would agree) of that just goes hand in hand with the anachronistic nature of still having such a system at all.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

nokeeffe99 said:
			
		

> The last few threads are missing a small, though important, point. You can't compare Queen Liz with Fidel or Saddam for the reason that in most monarcies, the monarch is a symbolic though powerless head of state.
> 
> In fact this is also the case for the president of quite a few republics (e.g. Ireland, Germany, Israel)  where the real power is with the Prime Minister and the government.
> 
> I presume that Fidel and his ilk have far greater than cermonial powers...


Well, you can compare anything the debate is whether it's a good analogy. As I have pointed out, there are many differences, but what they have in common is that the handing over of power takes place under very different conditions. 

In our system, we _know _the president, no matter how bad, *cannot *possibly stay more than eight years. In our system, we _know _we can fire him either by not electing him to a second term or by pressuring our representatives to impeach him. In our system, we _know _that the person who replaces him is a member of our elected government or someone appointed by that government. 

Have their been good monarchs? My opinion is yes. One of my favorite persons in the world is king Juan Carlos of Spain. I think he was good for Spain and I'm glad he was king of Spain during those very difficult times. But it was kind of a crap shot, no? I mean, if Juan and Princess Maria Mercedes of Bourbon had produced an @#$% then Spain would have gotten an @#$% for a king. We get to pick our @#$%. So in a sense, that's what seperates our head of state from the one they have in Britain, Spain, Kuwait, Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> The time-honoured one is to execute them! I'm not being flippant - the usual way to change kings (I'm not talking about getting rid of the whole system) was to murder the one you didn't like. And, as a nod towards LRV's history, I see no reason to buck the trend now.
> 
> Seriously - the truth (I hope others would agree) of that just goes hand in hand with the anachronistic nature of still having such a system at all.



They say in Spanish that «las comparaciones son odiosas» but it's one of the options people in Cuba has as well. It's a very messy way to remove a head of state. We hold a trial in the Senate and nobody dies. Well, unless you're an Oliver Stone fan.


----------



## danielfranco

Perhaps there was a time when one single strong ruler was needed to maintain cohesion in an otherwise fragmented society. I think that when feudalism was invented back in the middle ages, it was the best possible solution to the problems at hand. Also, when democracy was invented by the Greeks about three thousand years ago, it seemed to have worked fine for their little city-states. Nowdays, it seems as if the republican model of governance might just be the "necessary evil" needed to govern a large population living in an extended territory...
I suppose, in practice, most societies are ruled by an oligarchy of the ones in control of the economic resources in a country, much as it has been for many many many centuries already...

I cannot, for the life of me, envision what different and new model of government might be necessary to help society along this new information era... We'll see.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi.

When I started this thread, I didn't find a reason for which monarchies should exist nowadays, but now I think I have an important one: Many people want to keep this tradition *alive*.

That's a very important reason to me, however I think It still has more cons:



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that both Fidel Castro and Queen Elizabeth have something in common: *they are non-elected leaders*. They are not removed because people don't remove them. It's very passive. Nobody picked them.



+1.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> If Britain ends the monarchy, that does not mean that they just threw 1000+ years of history down the drain. The history and the written records remain. The palaces and royal monuments are still there for all to see.


 
I agree with that.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> 61 pence per year times 60.5 million, that's 36 million pounds a year. Why are British people giving Elizabeth and her family 36 million pounds per year instead of to you, me, or any other person? What did she do to deserve this money?


Nothing, AFAIK. That's too easy.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> Does she really need this much money to sustain her family and royal functions?


I don't think so, furthermore, I don't think it's necessary to make them wealthy while you can spend that money on other things (really important things).

This may sound sarcastic, but I'm being serious: Why do they not live from donations? This is fair, in my opinion. They'll get money from the people who *really* want them.

It's unfair for people to mantain economically something you're in disagree with. It doesn't only happens in monarchies, but also in many country where your are forced to support an specific religion (for instance) when you pay your taxes. Let them subsist by themselves! If you are in disagree with that, you don't have to support it!




			
				vince said:
			
		

> If the monarchy is ended, the paying public will still be able to delight in visiting her residences. People can still visit former royal castles and palaces in other countries who have not had a monarch in years.


Sure.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this is just a defense of the generic "being rich and famous isn't what it's cracked up to be". Your arguments work for anyone rich and famous, movie stars, pop singers, they all face paparazzi, tight schedules, loss of personal privacy, public appearances when all you want to do is go to bed. They also have so much money they don't know what to do with it. But most of us would much rather be rich and famous than lead our anonymous lives. So I don't see your point.
> 
> The difference is that  with celebrities,  if they gamble all their money away, they won't leave anything for their children and the children are back to square one. Whereas with the royal family, you can spend spend spend, but you know your descendants will still be rich royals.



I'm in agree with you here as well.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> What do you think about Canada and Commonwealth nations keeping the same monarch as the UK?


Good question.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Oh not quite - I think that if the British people wanted rid of the monarchy we'd have a referendum and it would peacefully happen. I really can't believe there would be any bloodshed at all. I don't think you could say the same about the "people" getting rid of Castro or Hussein. In our case I think if we had an official vote and people were under no pressure either way they might well vote actively for the monarchy. *There are no groups seriously calling for its dissolution*.


In the UK: http://www.republic.org.uk/
In Spain: http://www.contralamonarquia.es/

Regards.


----------



## la reine victoria

vince said:
			
		

> If Britain ends the monarchy, that does not mean that they just threw 1000+ years of history down the drain. The history and the written records remain. The palaces and royal monuments are still there for all to see.
> 
> *Fair enough.  But my whole point is that I believe in continuation and conservatism.  Having a monarchy is our tradition;  we've done very well thus far.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 61 pence per year times 60.5 million, that's 36 million pounds a year. Why are British people giving Elizabeth and her family 36 million pounds per year instead of to you, me, or any other person? What did she do to deserve this money? Does she really need this much money to sustain her family and royal functions?
> 
> *British people give far far more than this in benefits for lone mothers, the work-shy, the disabled (rightly so), the homeless, etc.  Nobody in need misses out here.  Immigrants are given homes, language lessons, free health care (towards which they have never contributed).  *
> 
> *Figures for the upkeep of the monarchy are available on the internet.  We obviously think it's a system worth keeping otherwise it would have disappeared years ago.*
> 
> 
> 
> If the monarchy is ended, the paying public will still be able to delight in visiting her residences. People can still visit former royal castles and palaces in other countries who have not had a monarch in years.
> 
> *How  true.  I've done that very thing myself.  The Bavarian castles of Mad Ludwig are quite amazing, Versailles an absolute delight.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is just a defense of the generic "being rich and famous isn't what it's cracked up to be". Your arguments work for anyone rich and famous, movie stars, pop singers, they all face paparazzi, tight schedules, loss of personal privacy, public appearances when all you want to do is go to bed. They also have so much money they don't know what to do with it. *But most of us would much rather be rich and famous than lead our anonymous lives.* So I don't see your point.
> 
> *Nonsense!  Movie stars, pop singers, all celebs, choose this  lifestyle and revel in it.  A monarch is a monarch by accident of birth or circumstance.  He/she has no choice.  Edward VIII chose to abdicate because, in my opinion, he didn't want the top job.  So, by circumstance, Princess  Elizabeth's lot was to become Queen.  And an excellent job she has made of it, and will continue to do so for many years to come, God willing.*
> 
> *"Most of us would rather be rich and famous than lead our anonymous lives."  - Kindly speak for yourself.  My life isn't anonymous anyway, I've done a great deal in helping to uncover a lot of our prehistory and acknowledgement of this has been made in publications.  *
> 
> The difference is that with celebrities, if they gamble all their money away, they won't leave anything for their children and the children are back to square one. Whereas with the royal family, you can spend spend spend, but you know your descendants will still be rich royals.
> 
> *What do you think the Royal family spend, spend, spend on?  They haven't suddenly come into money, they were born into it.  The Queen is known to be frugal in her habits.  One thing we do have to thank her, and previous monarchs for, is their wise purchases of great works of art which would have been lost to Britain.  And yes, we are able to see them.  She loans them to galleries and has a constantly changing exhibition at the Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace.*
> 
> 
> Having a republic does not take away the right to do these things.
> 
> *You* *would be amazed at the lobbying by the politically kerrekt brigade to prevent us from offending immigrants.  They even try to get posters advertising bacon banned, lest a Muslim should be offended.  Republic or Monarchy, they would still be busy!*
> 
> What do you think about Canada and Commonwealth nations keeping the same monarch as the UK?


 
*That's entirely their own affair.  Are there murmurs of discontent in Canada? *




LRV


----------



## timpeac

*



We obviously think it's a system worth keeping otherwise it would have disappeared years ago.

Click to expand...

* 
I really don't think so. It's just people are naturally apathetic. Your "if it ain't broke why fix it" comment was more apt I think.

I think that if you were to set up a new country and start with a blank piece of paper to sketch out how you would set up the country you wouldn't pick such a system.


----------



## la reine victoria

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> In the UK: http://www.republic.org.uk/


 

A pathetic little group of dissenters.  Nothing worth taking note of here.




LRV


----------



## la reine victoria

timpeac said:
			
		

> I really don't think so. It's just people are naturally apathetic. Your "if it ain't broke why fix it" comment was more apt I think.
> 
> I think that if you were to set up a new country and start with a blank piece of paper to sketch out how you would set up the country you wouldn't pick such a system.


 
But are they really so apathetic?  Consider the huge numbers who turn out for special events.  I reckon the Queen will outlive me but you'll still be around when her time comes.  I guarantee, unless something changes drastically, that there will be people queueing for hours to file past at the "lying in state" or to sign books of condolence.

I agree with you 100% about the theoretical new country.  It would follow the republican system.

Mind you, I'm being very active in agitating for the Isle of Wight to become independent.  I shall proclaim myself Queen - Osborne will do  very nicely as a bijou palace.  (Coins and stamps are currently being designed for my approval.)    Naturally I shall be Victoria II.  And I do have an heir and a spare.  





LRV


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> That's entirely their own affair.  Are there murmurs of discontent in Canada?



Not many.

A few anglophones would like to abolish the monarchy for the reasons already given, and in Quebec there are many who resent the monarchy,  but most Canadians are very fond of Queen Elizabeth.  This would, of course, change if she were to take a hand in governmental affairs ... but the same could be said of her English subjects.

I have a nasty suspicion that we're also monarchists because we can point to the monarchy as yet another thing that distinguishes us from Americans!


----------



## timpeac

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> But are they really so apathetic? Consider the huge numbers who turn out for special events. I reckon the Queen will outlive me but you'll still be around when her time comes. I guarantee, unless something changes drastically, that there will be people queueing for hours to file past at the "lying in state" or to sign books of condolence.
> 
> I agree with you 100% about the theoretical new country. It would follow the republican system.
> 
> Mind you, I'm being very active in agitating for the Isle of Wight to become independent. I shall proclaim myself Queen - Osborne will do very nicely as a bijou palace. (Coins and stamps are currently being designed for my approval.)  Naturally I shall be Victoria II. And I do have an heir and a spare.
> 
> LRV


I think you are right, that there would be many people coming to see the queen lying dead in state, true. I do think though that a lot of this respect and like for the monarchy will die with her. This is for several reasons -

- It is only relatively recently that we have freed (started to free ourselves?) of the class system. The royalty (and nobility) are hugely caught up in this system. This didn't really occur until after the second world war which is quite recent, really, so things take time to change.
- Many of the people who are largely in favour of the royalty, I would contend, are the older generations. I think that there are many reasons for that, but a large part of it is the memory of the second world war and the nationalism necessarily stirred up at the time which unquestioningly put the defence of _king _and country as the aim for all.
- She's not really put a foot wrong (or right - one of the reasons I am so against a monarch as head of state is that she never has a bloody opinion on anything. Does she prefer holidaying in France or Spain? Is she a communist? Does she believe that abortion should be illegal? Who bloody knows!) and so she doesn't instil change as a reaction against her. Charles on the other side, and as a sign of the times largely because of his perceived mistreatment of the Holy Sloane Ranger, is unpopular. I think that he will become king nevertheless, but the monarchy will be weakened. It_ will_ fall before to long or I'll eat my trilby.

I understand that Royal celebrations such as the silver jubilee a few decades ago were huge affairs, with street parties and national jollification and celebration. The recent ones have barely rivaled the celebrations at the opening of a crisp-packet.


----------



## maxiogee

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> You can't remove the Queen the way you remove a president.
> 
> There is no way to impeach Lizz.
> If you are a Brit and don't like monarchy and you convince enough Brits, you can get rid of the crown.
> But if you are a Brit, you like monarchy but don't like _that _Queen you have to wait until she dies unless you speed up that process.
> 
> Americans can, collectively, decide they don't like their Bush (not presidents in general) and take steps to remove him.



I don't think you're looking at this the right way.
If enough people disliked HM ERII, the politicians would see to it that she went. Believe me, they would if they felt it necessary.

You make the point that the British can get rid of the Monarchy but not "a monarch", and the opposite prevails in the US, you can get rid of "a president" but not the Presidency.
I don't see much of a difference between having a life-long monarch with no power, replaced by an heir when necessary and the idea that Bush 1 & 2 could well be followed by a stark choice between Clinton 2 & Bush 3. How closely did America come to having Kennedy 1 & 2?
It seems a bit like a Catholic having their diocese controlled by their Archbishop and fretting about who is Pope.

Anyway, as I say, this isn't my discussion. I'm just an impartial observer of both systems. We have a Presidency but it's a purely decorative & functional rôle - and it does us fine.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I don't think you're looking at this the right way.



This is how I'm looking at it:

It was believed by many people that our President Nixon commited a crime. There was a way to get rid of our head of state. In monarchies, when the head of state is a criminal, I believe it's not as straightforward to get rid of a criminal head of state.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> You make the point that the British can get rid of the Monarchy but not "a monarch", and the opposite prevails in the US, you can get rid of "a president" but not the Presidency.



In the United States, if people wanted it, we _*could *_get rid of the presidency. Our Constitution could be ammended to remove the executive branch altogether.


----------



## diegodbs

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> This is how I'm looking at it:
> 
> It was believed by many people that our President Nixon commited a crime. There was a way to get rid of our head of state. In monarchies, when the head of state is a criminal, I believe it's not as straightforward to get rid of a criminal head of state.
> 
> 
> 
> In the United States, if people wanted it, we _*could *_get rid of the presidency. Our Constitution could be ammended to remove the executive branch altogether.


 
Artículo 59.2 de la Constitución Española:



> Si el Rey se inhabilitare para el ejercicio de su autoridad y la imposibilidad fuere reconocida por las Cortes Generales, entrará a ejercer inmediatamente la Regencia el Príncipe heredero de la corona, si fuese mayor de edad. Si no lo fuere.......


 
At least in the Spanish Constitution that situation is dealt with.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Artículo 59.2 de la Constitución Española:
> 
> 
> 
> At least in the Spanish Constitution that situation is dealt with.



Yes, I see. Interestly enough, the person who replaced Nixon was NOT somebody the people voted for (not even as a Vice President candidate). Gerald Ford was appointed Vice President but at least he was appointed by somebody we elected. So in a sense, he was indirectly elected. If the king can no longer rule, you have a replacement who's main qualification is that he's the king's son. 

Now that's not to say that if the King of Spain, Dios no lo quiera, went mad, that Felipe wouldn't do a good job. I think that given the circumstances, Gerald Ford did an okay job. But it's not something he _inherited_.

However, Diego, it looks like it is *indeed *straightfoward in Spain. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## diegodbs

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Yes, I see. Interestly enough, the person who replaced Nixon was NOT somebody the people voted for (not even as a Vice President candidate). Gerald Ford was appointed Vice President but at least he was appointed by somebody we elected. So in a sense, he was indirectly elected. If the king can no longer rule, you have a replacement who's main qualification is that he's the king's son.
> 
> Now that's not to say that if the King of Spain, Dios no lo quiera, went mad, that Felipe wouldn't do a good job. I think that given the circumstances, Gerald Ford did an okay job. But it's not something he _inherited_.
> 
> However, Diego, it looks like it is *indeed *straightfoward in Spain. Thanks for pointing that out.


 
If the situation described in our Constitution (inhabilitación del Rey) ever happened, the new King would not be someone whom we elected directly or indirectly through our members of the Parliament, as the case was with Gerald Ford.

That's the weak point with monarchies: kings are not elected, kings inherit their status. So if the king (father) was not elected but the new king (son) had to be elected, that might give people ideas about why can we not always elect our king? Would it then be a republican monarchy? Next step: why not a republican republic?


----------



## Gustavoang

Hello.



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> A pathetic little group of dissenters.  *Nothing worth taking note of here*.



Firstly, they are citizens, no longer subjects. Thus, your opinion and theirs are worth taking into account anywhere; it does not matter whether they don't represent the most of you.

On the other hand... Is it a little group of dissenters?

I think they're not: They are present all over the kingdom, or the most of it, as far as I can see; even in The Commonwealth (yes, Canadians too).

Regards.

P.S.: If it's true, it's quite interesting: _Britain says 'no' to paying for the royals_. Although I admit they don't seem to prove seriously such an statement.


----------



## la reine victoria

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Hello.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, they are citizens, no longer subjects. Thus, your opinion and theirs are worth taking into account anywhere; it does not matter whether they don't represent the most of you.
> 
> On the other hand... Is it a little group of dissenters?
> 
> I think they're not: They are present all over the kingdom, or the most of it, as far as I can see; even in The Commonwealth (yes, Canadians too).
> 
> Regards.
> 
> P.S.: If it's true, it's quite interesting: _Britain says 'no' to paying for the royals_. Although I admit they don't seem to prove seriously such an statement.


 
Hello Gustavoang,

Your thread has given us much to discuss with arguments pro monarchy, pro republic and "it makes no difference".

I have explained why I am pro monarchy. This doesn't make me fiercely pro any Royal family. They are members of the human race who, by accident of birth, find themselves in this position. I can find plenty of members of the Britsh royal family to criticise. But let's face it, are we not, by our very nature, critics of anyone in "authority". Here in the UK we delight in criticising our politicians. Moaning about the government - and I've lived through many - is as commonplace as discussing the weather. 

Had I, by accident of birth, been born in a republic then I'm sure I would have accepted that as being the norm for me. And done my fair share of criticising the president.  

To answer your original question, "Is Monarchy better than a Republic?" then I have to answer "I don't know." We currently have an "almost president" in Tony Blair, about whom I shall make no comment.

Regarding the group "Republic". Of course they have the right to express their opinions. But to make this claim -



> In a startling new poll conducted just days after the Queen's public birthday celebrations, a majority of Britons have said they believe the royals should receive no public money.


 
based on this one poll



> 1051 people were questioned between 25th and 29th April. The question asked was: "Some people believe the royal family should rely solely on their own private incomes, and not receive any state funding. Do you agree?


 
doesn't tell me this group is a serious threat to the Monarchy. I've never heard of them. They certainly receive no media coverage. 

Some people need "a cause" to make their lives more meaningful. There are thousands of groups all across the world who believe they have something to fight for. Most can act openly, those who live in repressive regimes have to act in secret.

Thank you for starting off this fascinating and revealing discussion.




LRV


----------



## diegodbs

> We currently have an "almost president" in Tony Blair, about whom I shall make no comment.


 
LRV, were Mr. Blair the founder of a new royal line, could we cherish any hope of your joining our republican ranks?  

I mean, what would you need to change your points of view about monarchy? An inept, corrupt king? A long dynasty of equally inept and corrupt kings and queens?


----------



## lizzeymac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that both Fidel Castro and Queen Elizabeth have something in common: they are non-elected leaders. They are not removed because people don't remove them. It's very passive. Nobody picked them.
> 
> If you live in Cuba and don't like Fidel, tough luck. I live in the US and don't like Bush but if there are enough of us, we can get him impeached. Nixon resigned but it was because alot of people didn't like him and because he knew that staying in office would only get his butt kicked to the curb.  When a monarch abdicates it's a rather different process. You can't remove the Queen the way you remove a president.
> 
> There is no way to impeach Fidel and no way to impeach Lizz. If you are a Brit and don't like monarchy and you convince enough Brits, you can get rid of the crown. But if you are a Brit, you like monarchy but don't like _that _Queen you have to wait until she dies unless you speed up that process.
> 
> Americans can, collectively, decide they don't like their Bush (not presidents in general) and take steps to remove him. And when Bush leaves office he won't be replaced by one of his (very hot) daughters but by some other idiot who suckers us into picking him or her.
> 
> We have stupid presidents and Britain has had stupid monarchs but we pick which ones and they don't stay for life.



1 - Our current President is (IMO) dangerously stupid & is surrounded by people of low cunning & even lower morals.  However, we have had several excellent and many adequate Presidents and Dubya will be gone in 2 years.

2 - I don't think anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Elizabeth II would refer to her as "stupid" no matter what other flaws she may or may not posess.  The rest of her familiy seem a fairly mixed bag, but most people's are.

3 - Nixon resigned becasue he was within inches of an impeachment hearing, not because no one liked him, he was actually fairly popular with most centrist & right wing Americans.  Frighteningly, he was one of the better educated & intelligent Presidents we have had & a Quaker to boot - he was just a bit of a meglomaniacal control freak with paranoid tendencies.
-


----------



## la reine victoria

diegodbs said:
			
		

> LRV, were Mr. Blair the founder of a new royal line, could we cherish any hope of your joining our republican ranks?
> 
> *Cherie Blair as queen!*
> 
> *I'd be first in the queue Diego.  *
> 
> I mean, what would you need to change your points of view about monarchy? An inept, corrupt king? A long dinasty of equally inept and corrupt kings and queens?
> 
> *Well, we've had our fair share of those but that was before democracy. Henry VIII had a pretty bad track record.  *


 
Interesting short comment on whether a monarch should be *elected* here.





LRV


----------



## la reine victoria

> he was just a bit of a meglomaniacal control freak with paranoid tendencies.


 

Reminds me of "President" Blair.  





LRV


----------



## lizzeymac

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Reminds me of "President" Blair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV



Yes, I can't figure him out - he seems to be such a follower rather than a leader.  I might like him better if he liked Bush less. 

In America, in many ways the local or state government has a far greater impact on day to day life than the Executive Branch (President) 
- the courts; education; land, real estate, sales taxes; transportation; social services, land use zoning, utilities.  

Are monarchies more centralized? Is this more or less efficient?

-


----------



## la reine victoria

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Yes, I can't figure him out - he seems to be such a follower rather than a leader. I might like him better if he liked Bush less.
> 
> In America, in many ways the local or state government has a far greater impact on day to day life than the Executive Branch (President)
> - the courts; education; land, real estate, sales taxes; transportation; social services, land use zoning, utilities.
> 
> Are monarchies more centralized? Is this more or less efficient?
> 
> -


 
Hi Lizzeymac,

Britain is divided into counties.  These have electoral wards and the large cities have boroughs and wards.  

As far as government is concerned we have local councils for the area in which we live.  The local councils consist of elected councillors with responsibility for various departments, e.g. health, education, highways, environment, social services, recreation and leisure, parks and gardens, etc.

Local councils are government funded and are given set budgets each year.  These vary according to size and number of inhabitants.  All residents have to pay "Council Tax".  The amount varies depending on which category your property is in.  Generally, the larger your property and the more desirabile its location the higher you will be graded and subsequently you will pay higher tax.  All UK properties are due to be regraded soon.  It has been suggested (and will probably come to be) that if you have made improvements to your property, have added a conservatory or have a particularly stunning view you will be taxed on it!  I foresee a mass destruction of conservatories, and bricking up of windows, to escape this extra burden.

I receive a discount on my tax as I live alone.  Even so it costs me around 1500 UK pounds ($2820) per annum just for the privilege of living here.

Councils nominate members to represent them in Parliament and we have annual council elections to choose our MP.

Etc. etc.


LRV


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hi, Lizzeymac.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> 1 - Our current President is (IMO) dangerously stupid & is surrounded by people of low cunning & even lower morals.  However, we have had several excellent and many adequate Presidents and Dubya will be gone in 2 years. *I don't know if he's stupid but I agree with the rest.*
> 
> 2 - I don't think anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Elizabeth II would refer to her as "stupid" no matter what other flaws she may or may not posess.  The rest of her familiy seem a fairly mixed bag, but most people's are.* I agree. But my issue with monarchy is that it's inheritance based and that monarchs are moral and good/smart people can have bad/stupid children.*
> 
> 3 - Nixon resigned becasue he was within inches of an impeachment hearing, not because no one liked him, he was actually fairly popular with most centrist & right wing Americans.  Frighteningly, he was one of the better educated & intelligent Presidents we have had & a Quaker to boot - he was just a bit of a meglomaniacal control freak with paranoid tendencies.
> *If Nixon were so popular, I don't think those impeachment hearings could have gone ahead. That's just my own personal opinion. But I agree that the main issue is that there were questions as to whether or not he had commited criminal acts.*
> 
> -



I don't know much about the British monarch. I know some things about the Spanish one and what I know I like very much. I don't think monarchy is necessarily but I'm glad we don't one in America because I see several problems with it.


P.S. I've been to England and I loved it. It think it's a great country.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hello, LRV.



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> To answer your original question, "Is Monarchy better than a Republic?" then I have to answer "I don't know." We currently have an "almost president" in Tony Blair, about whom I shall make no comment.



By the way, if you ask me the same questions I made when I started this thread, you'll realize that I've changed my mind in several aspects:

*Don't you think it's better to count with a Republic?*
It does not really matter, as long as the population has the power over itself. By this I mean that they are the ones with the right to choose their laws (monarchs must not approve/refuse them in the name of the population) and their presidential candidates, have the supreme control over their Armed Forces, among other things.

Monarchs must not have any power over the population, even if it's regulated by a parliament. As a tradition, they should be limited to _bless_ popular desicions.


*Does it worth spending huge amounts of money on them?*
No.

They have to be maintained by themselves (with the money earned in the palaces, for example) and the people who really want them.

I think that when it comes to supporting particular ideals, it should be done by those who really believe in these; but when it comes to supporting common goals, everyone must collaborate. It's very subjective to distinguish what's a "particular ideal" and a "common goal", and monarchy is a _particular ideal_ to me.


*Does it promote equality among the population?*
No.

Nowadays, monarchies are still maintained by everyone who live in the kingdom. Why must I give you part of the money I made _*by myself*_ -not because I'm a descendant of an important person-?

*Are they useful?*
Yes, because they help to keep alive an important tradition to some cultures. Moreover, they didn't choose to live that way (a hard live, despite all the privileges they have), and they are free to resign from their power (which would beat such a tradition).

However, they may imply many disadvantages.



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Regarding the group "Republic". Of course they have the right to express their opinions. But to make this claim -
> 
> based on this one poll
> 
> doesn't tell me this group is a serious threat to the Monarchy.



Yes, I agree with that.



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> I've never heard of them. They certainly receive no media coverage.



Actually, I think media use to be biased towards an specific party (not only in Venezuela, but also anywhere in the world), despite they say they try to spread _the truth_.



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Thank you for starting off this fascinating and revealing discussion.



Thank you for participating and making me see beyond what I think because of my culture!

Cheers!


----------



## maxiogee

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> P.S.: If it's true, it's quite interesting: _Britain says 'no' to paying for the royals_. Although I admit they don't seem to prove seriously such an statement.



From that link…


> The question asked was: "Some people believe the royal family should rely solely on their own private incomes, and not receive any state funding. Do you agree?


That's a very leading question!

The Queen pays tax.
The Prince of Wales receives no state funding.
The "royals" who do receive state funding do so in return for performing state duties.

Do any of the people questioned know how much the Civil List amounts to? Do they know the number of people it covers?


----------



## la reine victoria

maxiogee said:
			
		

> From that link…
> 
> That's a very leading question!
> 
> The Queen pays tax.
> The Prince of Wales receives no state funding.
> The "royals" who do receive state funding do so in return for performing state duties.
> 
> Do any of the people questioned know how much the Civil List amounts to? Do they know the number of people it covers?


 

How many people know this?


The civil list is the annual grant of money by Parliament to the monarch and other members of the royal family. 

Specific sums are allocated to named members.

*In 1981 the Queen undertook to refund to the exchequer the sum granted to three of her cousins.*

*In 1993, following some pressure from public and Parliamentary opinion, she limited the payments from the list further so that only Her Majesty, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother were eligible.*

In the same year it was also announced that the Queen would pay income tax on her personal income. Source.

How many people know this?

_Parliamentary annuities *(repaid by The Queen)*_​ 
HRH The Duke of York£249,000
HRH The Earl of Wessex£141,000
HRH The Princess Royal£228,000
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, TRH The Duke 
and Duchess of Kent and HRH Princess Alexandra
*£636,000​* Of the £636,000, £175,000 *is provided by The Queen* to The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, £236,000 to The Duke and Duchess of Kent and £225,000 to Princess Alexandra. Source 

So we are paying only HM QEII and Prince Phillip. The Queen is looking after her own.

If people really want to know how our government wastes tax payers' money then please read this short article in The Times (January 2006). It is on pages 1 and 2. Some of it will amuse you (like the "teaching grannies how to wear slippers" scheme - £225,000). Some of it will alarm you - More than £100m was wasted to keep 25,000 homes empty for asylum seekers between 2002 and 2005.



LRV


----------



## maxiogee

I know too much (for an Irishman) about the workings of the British royals!
I reckon she should start charging royalties on her grumpy profile for the currency and the stamps!
I think she should also have the sole rights to corgi-breeding in the realm.


----------



## la reine victoria

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I know too much (for an Irishman) about the workings of the British royals!
> I reckon she should start charging royalties on her grumpy profile for the currency and the stamps!
> .


 

You've shown a distinct leaning towards Her Majesty throughout this discussion Tony.  
Dere would be uproar at de Kennel Club. 






LRV


----------



## maxiogee

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> You've shown a distinct leaning towards Her Majesty throughout this discussion Tony.



Well I think we all know she was soured by her mammy's attitude to how _she_ got the gig as Queen.
She's doing a job which means that she cannot speak her mind.
I don't know if she enjoys being Queen, but I seriously doubt it.
All she gets is sycophants and gripes! The extremes of both ends.

I do feel that there should be a serious review of the concept of the monarchy in Britain as soon as she dies. Give Charles a year as King and then send a deputation from the Privy Council to have a strong talk.
Shut the media out again - no more briefings to them, strict protocol, everything done through press releases, and make damned sure that William and Harry keep their trousers zipped and their bibs clean. Give a lump sum settlement to Charles' siblings to get them out of public life  (Anne would jump at the chance, so too I think would Andrew, not sure about Edward (what is it with Princes called "Edward"?) but put them into the House of Lords and let them speak! Pare 'the family' down to him & her and the two lads.

End of foreigner meddling in affairs which don't concern him!


----------



## Fernando

timpeac said:
			
		

> The time-honoured one is to execute them! I'm not being flippant - the usual way to change kings (I'm not talking about getting rid of the whole system) was to murder the one you didn't like. And, as a nod towards LRV's history, I see no reason to buck the trend now.



You are right. As an example, Visigoths kings (circa 430-711) in Spain had an average "mandate period" shorter than the average US president.


----------

