# Opinions on royalty



## panjabigator

How important is your countries royalty to you?  Does there presence bother you at all?  Paying taxes to a figure head who has no power?  The drama of it all?  

I know some people love them and some people hate them...but aside from the Kennedy's, Vanderbelts, and celebrities, we have no royalty here in the US.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Well, European royalties only have a symbolic function nowadays, and don't wield any power. Because of this, they're seen (at least over here) as politically neutral, and don't speak in public about their political beliefs. 

I think having them around can be useful, as they serve as representatives of the nation, without the political connotions.


----------



## Etcetera

I wish Russia was a monarchy, as it used to be for a long time. 
I really admire many Russian emperors and empresses, from Peter the Great to Nicolas II. And you know, most people in Russia actually _liked _their monarch. The communists were, in fact, a minority.
I wish we had a king or a queen. And I wouldn't have minded paying taxes, if anything.


----------



## maxiogee

I'll be sorry to see them go, but nonethless they're going.


----------



## panjabigator

So in a way, Royal families keep countries operational at full employment!


----------



## papillon

Etcetera said:


> And you know, most people in Russia actually _liked _their monarch. The communists were, in fact, a minority.



I don't have the statistics on how many people actually liked the royal family. But there was a very broad coalition in Russia in 1917 who removed the Royal family from power. Most people in the West don't realize that the monarchy was terminated _not_ by the communists (or, _social democrate_ or even _bolsheviks_) but by a fairly progressive group which took power during the February revolution. They proceeded to form a Privisionary Government headed by Kerensky which existed until Ocober of that year.

I am opposed to keeping the Royal Family just for ceremonious reasons. I am in fact opposed the institute of nobility or any other institution where benefits are bestowed upon someone simply for being born into the right family. I would not want a single penny of my money go to feed an extensive family of hanger-ons.


----------



## Hakro

Trying to say it in a nice way: All the nations have their "royalties": kings, presidents, queens, celebrieties, emperors, dictators, rock-singers, whatever. They are all the same and all the people pay more or less voluntary these "taxes". 

Even American (US) people do it.


----------



## invictaspirit

I (mainly) like living in a constitutional monarchy. I like having a head of state who is largely powerless, because they can represent the country and be a point of unity that is not political. Despite being rather distant and old-fashioned, the Queen is generally a very decent woman who is well-known for being able to respect more or less everyone. Brits are still laughing at the Al Qaida statement that was issued a couple of years ago which praised her and told her not to fear for her life (as a counterpoint and example to the evils of Tony Blair).  Even Al Qaida think the Queen is a sweet old lady! And if she were not decent we have a powerful Parliament and an even more powerful media that would clip her wings.

The tax issue is bogus. The British royal family costs every Briton the equivalent of a pint and a half of milk a year. That's really not very much. It's about a dollar twenty a year! Are you paying a dollar twenty a year for Bush? Getting your money's worth?  

If Britain were to become a republic I could live with it. We debate these things quite often, and are encouraged to do so by a lively and free media. If Brits decided that the royals were useless, they would go. But we remain fond of the symbolic power they hold and I for one do not begrudge the modest cost.


----------



## ElaineG

> The British royal family costs every Briton the equivalent of a pint and a half of milk a year. That's really not very much.


 
And besides, has anyone (I'm sure they have) calculated their tourist value?  There will always be other sweet little old ladies (like my late Grandmother -- a devoted NY Jewish royalist ) who go to London mostly to see where the sweet old lady lives, was crowned, etc.

I remember when the whole world tuned in to watch Charles and Di get married -- the amount of souvenir junk that was sold and the taxes thereupon must have easily offset any negative impact of the Royals on the British economy for that year and probably a few years to come.


----------



## TimeHP

> most people in Russia actually _liked _their monarch


 
Really?
I can't avoid to think to the bloody Sunday in 1905...


----------



## invictaspirit

ElaineG said:


> And besides, has anyone (I'm sure they have) calculated their tourist value? There will always be other sweet little old ladies (like my late Grandmother -- a devoted NY Jewish royalist ) who go to London mostly to see where the sweet old lady lives, was crowned, etc.
> 
> I remember when the whole world tuned in to watch Charles and Di get married -- the amount of souvenir junk that was sold and the taxes thereupon must have easily offset any negative impact of the Royals on the British economy for that year and probably a few years to come.


 
Well, there I was defending the royals...but now to deal with the tourism thing.

To be honest, no, the tourism factor isn't important.

Britain almost obessively questions and surveys its tourists. The government and the BTA/Visit Britain, year after year, state that these surveys reply that visiting royal stuff is waaaaay down the list of reasons people came to Britain as tourists. Business is #1 anyway, of course. But within tourism, shopping is always first, followed by touring, cultural pursuits, non-royal specific historical attractions, nightlife, visiting friends and family, and then and only then do the royal family kick in as a reason to visit most years.

The tourism industry is nice to have but is not crucial to the economy. I think it accounts for about 3% of GDP or something (and much of that is domestic). And of that 3%, only a small number of foreign tourists come here specifically because we are a monarchy.

What I have just posted is usually trotted out by anti-monarchists. But they are right. Think of it this way: France has been a republic for over 200 years. Doesn't stop millions visiting Versailles and so on.  If Britain were to become a republic, I don't think it would have much, if any, effect on tourism.


----------



## ElaineG

Thanks, Invicta, I did not know!  Well, let's put it this way:  If the Royals went out of business, it would have a negative economic effect on _American_ publishers and writers of tell-all behind the scenes books and tabloids as well as producers of women's channel mini-series!


----------



## Tsoman

I like the idea of the constitutional monarchy and British royal family.

If Britain said, "hey america, do you want to share our royal family with us?" I would say "sure, why not"


----------



## invictaspirit

ElaineG said:


> Thanks, Invicta, I did not know! Well, let's put it this way: If the Royals went out of business, it would have a negative economic effect on _American_ publishers and writers of tell-all behind the scenes books and tabloids as well as producers of women's channel mini-series!


 
Ah, well, the media is different. The same is true here. But again, probably not as crucial as it seems. Many more media £££ are spun by gossip, bios, scandal etc regarding vaccuous British celebrities than the royals these days.

I seem to be talking myself into a republic again.  I'm not a very ardent monarchist. I prefer the way we are, but if and when we chuck them out of the Palace, I wouldn't lose too much sleep, I guess.

I like the Irish and German models a lot.  If we abolished the monarchy I would hope we looked at those republics first.  Their presidents are not power-hungry politicians but seem above politics.  They are quietly powerful and influential, but save the usual screaming, hysterics, corruption and so on to the elected officials below them.


----------



## modus.irrealis

The country I live in, Canada, is technically a constitutional monarchy but we don't pay taxes to the Queen (our Queen being the Queen of England, of course) and I can't say she has that much of a presence, except on our currency. Even for the drama, I think the Canadians who follow it do so in the same way as Americans, and there's no real "our royal family" consciousness. I'm not even sure it's a very high percentage of Canadians who know who our head of state really is, so I'd say that it's only a small minority that has strong feelings about the constitutional aspects, although if there were a referendum on the issue, I'd vote to get rid of the monarchy -- it's not really a symbol I like.


----------



## Arianton

I absolutely adore the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Belgium.  Albert II is amazing!  The whole family pretty much is amazing but I feel that even among Belgians the opinions are split.  Many of the Flemish do not like the Queen because she is Italian and of course it was much easier for her to learn French and her French is a lot better than here Flemish so I believe the Flemish resent her for not trying as hard to speak Flemish. Personally I love Queen Paola!


----------



## fenixpollo

Tsoman said:


> If Britain said, "hey america, do you want to share our royal family with us?" I would say "sure, why not"


 They did ask us, and we said "no". 





panjabigator said:


> ...but aside from the Kennedy*s*, Vanderb*i*lts, and celebrities, we have no royalty here in the US.


 Americans would like you to believe this is true, but it is not.  





Hakro said:


> Trying to say it in a nice way: All the nations have their "royalties": kings, presidents, queens, celebrieties, emperors, dictators, rock-singers, whatever. They are all the same and all the people pay more or less voluntary these "taxes". Even American (US) people do it.


Hakro is correct, but rock-singers and celebrities generally are not part of the aristocracy. The American aristocracy (normally an adjunct to, but in our case a substitute for, royalty) is composed of the monied elite -- business leaders, politicians and influential families. We have a king, but he is put into power by the elite, rather than chosen by genetics like the British monarchs are.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

fenixpollo said:


> They did ask us, and we said "no".



Really? Funny how many of Americas leaders fought for king and country in the French and Indian war then.

I always think of a great quote from Dazed & Confused when I hear about this "..this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes. "


----------



## fenixpollo

We said "no" after the French & Indian War. I guess we changed our minds about royalty in the 13 years between the end of that war and the start of the next.

But the bit about slave-owning isn't the whole picture. The people most affected by increased taxes were not slaveholders, but the merchants of the Middle and Northern colonies.The most active revolutionaries were from those regions, and the whole thing began in the Northern climes of Massachusetts.  Off topic, I know, but....


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

fenixpollo said:


> We said "no" after the French & Indian War. I guess we changed our minds about royalty in the 13 years between the end of that war and the start of the next.



The colonies didn't say no to royalty at all, in fact Washington was a convinced royalist until almost the last minute. What Americans disliked was the imposition of taxes that they felt were unfair and were unable to challenge in parliament. And they wanted to safeguard their holdings as a bunch of aristocratic, slave-owning white men


----------



## fenixpollo

> What Americans disliked was the imposition of taxes that they felt were unfair and were unable to challenge in parliament. And they wanted to safeguard their holdings as a bunch of aristocratic, slave-owning white men.


 And to maintain their own aristocracy, independent of the George III's court.

A minority of the founders were slave owners (source)... but you are correct that they were all white men.


----------



## Lugubert

Having a king or queen as the head of state gives, in my opinion, a certain stability that can't be overturned by an election. Our king has sometimes influenced opinion way beyond his official power. The royal family also does a very useful job of promoting Sweden abroad.

If given the opportunity, I could certainly vote for restoring some of the previous power to our king, at least to the level of the queen in the Netherlands, and perhaps even to the amount that the king of Spain enjoys. The way he prevented a coup d'état a few years ago could hardly have been acheived by an elected president.


----------



## Thomsen

fenixpollo said:


> And to maintain their own aristocracy, independent of the George III's court.
> 
> A minority of the founders were slave owners (source)... but you are correct that they were all white men.


 
I didn't know that.  Thanks, Fenix.

I couldn't care less about royalty either way.  I highly doubt most people in the US would seriously consider installing any be they homegrown, English, or from some other line.


----------



## Mei

panjabigator said:


> How important is your countries royalty to you?  Does there presence bother you at all?  Paying taxes to a figure head who has no power?  The drama of it all?
> 
> I know some people love them and some people hate them...but aside from the Kennedy's, Vanderbelts, and celebrities, we have no royalty here in the US.



Hi Panja,

If I could choose I wouldn't have them (they are a great expense and we could use "this money" to solve many real problems that we have today) but I don't hate them at all, they seem to be nice people after all.

Cheers

Mei


----------



## la reine victoria

When talking to the many international holiday makers, who visit the beautiful Isle of Wight, they invariably say how lucky we are to have a royal family. 

Surprisingly, Americans seem to be the most "envious". Many were interviewed on TV during the Queen's walkabout at Windsor on her 80th birthday. They said they had come over especially to see Her Majesty.




LRV


----------



## caballoschica

la reine victoria said:


> When talking to the many international holiday makers, who visit the beautiful Isle of Wight. they invariably say how lucky we are to have a royal family.
> 
> Surprisingly, Americans seem to be the most "envious". Many were interviewed on TV during the Queen's walkabout at Windsor on her 80th birthday. They said they had come over especially to see Her Majesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


You make an excellent point.  I cannot speak for every American, but I think the reason many Americans may seem "envious" is that a lot of us are cynical of government, especially our own government system.  Yes, a royal family is a type of governing system, but it seems less direct and more away from the politics of the country, at least to our eye.  It was taboo during the times of the American Revolution because of King George III, but now it seems something that rather fascinates us than disgusts us. Now, of course you'll hear people saying:  Oh, they think they're royalty. Meaning that  they're a bit arrogant and think they're above everyone.  Not exactly a compliment.  But princess movies are a big hit, and English monarchies have fascinated Americans. 

I don't know if I'd consider the Kennedys and the other families and celebrities mentioned, royalty.  It depends on what you consider royalty.


----------



## Poetic Device

This is as far as Britain is concerned.

Granted, I do not live in nor have I visited Britain, yet.  However, I would really hate to see the royale family go.  I am one for traditions and history, and to me the royale family stands for a lot of that.  When i think of Britain, I think queen and changing of the guard (corny, touristy and typical I know).  In any event, yeah, I wouuld hate for them to leave.


----------



## don maico

caballoschica said:


> You make an excellent point.  I cannot speak for every American, but I think the reason many Americans may seem "envious" is that a lot of us are cynical of government, especially our own government system.  Yes, a royal family is a type of governing system, but it seems less direct and more away from the politics of the country, at least to our eye.  It was taboo during the times of the American Revolution because of King George III, but now it seems something that rather fascinates us than disgusts us. Now, of course you'll hear people saying:  Oh, they think they're royalty. Meaning that  they're a bit arrogant and think they're above everyone.  Not exactly a compliment.  But princess movies are a big hit, and English monarchies have fascinated Americans.
> 
> I don't know if I'd consider the Kennedys and the other families and celebrities mentioned, royalty.  It depends on what you consider royalty.


Probably fascinate you because you dont have one.The reality is quite when you hear how they live you get a rather jaundiced view of them.Whilst Elizabeth Windsor can be exempted from any criticism I am afraid most of her progeny and her husband are a tad dysfunctional to say the least, not to say appallingly extravagant. Philip is famous for his gaffes when on his foreign travels, Charles continues to be an embarrasment ,Harry is debauched, Andrew and Edward complete non entities. Out of all of them only Anne seems to take her duties seriously and William shows promise( I rather like him). My guess is that Elizabeth is waiting till he comes of age then the crown can be passed down to him.
Whilst its true most Brits support the institution more and more of us are leaning towards a republic in the sure knowledge that if you get a bad 'un at least you can vote him out next time. After all it was for a very good reason that so many colonials rebelled against George III.
Biggest mistake our royals  ever made was back in the sixties when they allowed the media into windsor castle to see how they lived( before no one knew anything and a great mystique surrounded them). Ever since then its been a case of warts and all ie nothing reamains secret.Even Diana who so many loved was far from perfect. she stole the limelight and manipulated the media turning herself into the self styled Queen of Hearts. Frankly there were and are very many more people who deserve the  accolades she received because of their selfless work in helping others.
Having said all of the above I do feel the current crop of young royals are far more in touch with  ordinary people , more approachable and less stuffy. I f we are to continue with the institution then there is hope of less grandiosity . Harry , despite his penchant for getting drunk smoking and urinating in a horse stable, looks like the kind of guy you could have laugh with.Zara achieved what her mother never could and won a Three day  event ( equestrian)world championship and Wills seems decent enough.


----------



## panjabigator

Mei said:


> Hi Panja,
> 
> If I could choose I wouldn't have them (they are a great expense and we could use "this money" to solve many real problems that we have today) but I don't hate them at all, they seem to be nice people after all.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mei



That's my exact thought! If they have enough money to continue to support themselves, then go right ahead. But I don't want my hard earned money to go to them just so they can get richer and be victim of even more worthless trashy magazines. It's quite a shame to think of all the lives lost due to their petty disputes in history.

But I don't hate them and I do enjoy reading about them.


----------



## Grop

We, the French, have gotten rid of our monarchy, and have no regret. It sometimes seems that we hate these people who died a long time ago.

I think it is a bit irrational, but who cares? We won't come back and have no reason to: If modern monarchies seem to be valid system, they don't seem to have any significant advantage when compared to modern republics.


----------



## Trina

panjabigator said:


> [...]  If they have enough money to continue to support themselves, then go right ahead.  But I don't want my hard earned money to go to them just so they cantcan get richer [...]


My sentiments exactly. We (like Canada) have the Queen of England as our Constitutional Monarch (Though I think it is only a matter of time before we become a republic. - Many believe this will occur after the Queen goes)
Every single time a member of the Royal family visits Australia, we pay for the visit (including the clothes the Queen wears on her visit)


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Don Maico*
> ....... and William shows promise( I rather like him). My guess is that Elizabeth is waiting till he comes of age then the crown can be passed down to him.


 


This would be constitutionally impossible since Prince Charles is the heir to the throne, and I can't imagine him refusing to be king.

Besides, the Queen's dedication to duty is so strong that I don't think she will ever abdicate.




LRV


----------



## don maico

la reine victoria said:


> This would be constitutionally impossible since Prince Charles is the heir to the throne, and I can't imagine him refusing to be king.
> 
> Besides, the Queen's dedication to duty is so strong that I don't think she will ever abdicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


My feeling is that she has no faith in Charles doing an adequate job so she will pull whatever strings are needed to ensure Wills takes over - constitution or no constitution


----------



## Javeke

Lemminkäinen said:


> Well, European royalties only have a symbolic function nowadays, and don't wield any power. Because of this, they're seen (at least over here) as politically neutral, and don't speak in public about their political beliefs.
> 
> I think having them around can be useful, as they serve as representatives of the nation, without the political connotions.


 
As well as the nation flag and coat of arms... but these are quite cheaper...


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> My feeling is that she has no faith in Charles doing an adequate job so she will pull whatever strings are needed to ensure Wills takes over - constitution or no constitution



She has no role in this. 
She can do either of two things 
— die and pass the job on to her heir, 
or 
— abdicate and pass the job on to her heir.

Charles might well be advised to decline the job, but the crisis the monarchy underwent as a result of the abdication of Edward viii makes it all but certain that neither The Queen nor Prince Charles are likely to take that route.


----------



## Poetic Device

Wait, didn't someone say that the royals only cost each person the equivolent of a pint and quart of milk a year or something like that?  That doesn't sound that expensive....


----------



## don maico

Poetic Device said:


> Wait, didn't someone say that the royals only cost each person the equivolent of a pint and quart of milk a year or something like that?  That doesn't sound that expensive....



Errrr, but they dont set a very good example with their extravagant lifestyle thats the problem.I dare say we could fund similar lifestyles for several overindulgent individuals but people would get resentful.


----------



## panjabigator

maxiogee said:


> She has no role in this.
> She can do either of two things
> — die and pass the job on to her heir,
> or
> — abdicate and pass the job on to her heir.
> 
> Charles might well be advised to decline the job, but the crisis the monarchy underwent as a result of the abdication of Edward viii makes it all but certain that neither The Queen nor Prince Charles are likely to take that route.



You mean you cannot disinherit someone from the throne? For someone so interested in their duty they should really amend that. And also, allow for equality in gender for succession to the throne.


----------



## Poetic Device

don maico said:


> Errrr, but they dont set a very good example with their extravagant lifestyle thats the problem.I dare say we could fund similar lifestyles for several overindulgent individuals but people would get resentful.


 
Then I wouldn't suggest continuing on the "they are too expensive for us to pay for" if that is all that they cost per person.  Jut because they are not spending the money as you like it does not mean that they are a major expense because that money will eventually go back into the economy.


----------



## Javeke

Okay, Spain's "Casa Real" received 8,05 million euro from the budget in 2006. Guess he may invite many to many pints...


----------



## la reine victoria

On the cost of the Royal Family to Britain. From an earlier thread, "What's better, a monarchy or a republic?"

Link.

LRV


----------



## Poetic Device

Do you have the adresses for the links?  They don't seem to be working....


----------



## la reine victoria

Hi PD,  

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/81952.stm

2. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4968.asp

3. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1974691,00.html

LRV


----------



## don maico

Poetic Device said:


> Then I wouldn't suggest continuing on the "they are too expensive for us to pay for" if that is all that they cost per person.  Jut because they are not spending the money as you like it does not mean that they are a major expense because that money will eventually go back into the economy.



You dont quite get my point. Its the example they set and the amount of public money they waste which concerns me the most. These people live a highly privilidged lifestyle and in my view abuse it.Its not as if they created their own wealth. They  live off a public purse which ,by anyone else standards, is enormous. I have no doubt we can well afford to keep them in that lifestyle but imagine if several hundred wanted it as well . It would fuel a massive resentment . "Off with their heads" would be the cry. Its interesting to note that the French who posted in here do no regret one bit getting rid of their royals. Mind you they have got Chirac and who would want him. 
Trouble is too many Brits view the royals through rose tinted spectacles. It always makes me cringe hearing people proclaim about "how gracious and majestic the Queen is" Heavens do they live or work with her!! Read the the books written by staff who have worked for Charles and Diana for eg. Obtainable in the US but not here because they do not wish us to know what they are really like. They do not wish the mystique to simply vanish because their days as regents would most definitely be numbered.


----------



## BlackDragon

I believe that Royalty needs to take back some of the power that Government has taken away from them. Monarchs are in such a position that they are not allowed to have any say whatsoever in how the government, that has been set up in their name (irony), runs the country. They are forced to go along with whatever the government says for fear of national reprisal (revoloution). I think that this is a very sad situation. The Government may pay Royalty but at the moment for nothing more than a tourist attraction - This needs to change otherwise royalty will become obsolete and people, like it or not, we need figureheads in modern society to help industry and to honour those that the people adore. The most important thing to remember is that Royalty is nothing without the people that help to maintain it. Baically you and I - normal people the collective we have the power and they have the torque so to speak.

Black Dragon


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
I cannot write what I think about the Spanish royal family because I would be banned.
The Spanish constitution says that all Spaniards are equals before the law, except the royal family.
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others"
Alexa


----------



## Namakemono

I can only speak for Spain, but I admire our king. Although his political presence is not as "useful" as it used to be, he's still a guarantee of democracy and stability. Besides, it's not like he's opressing us (in fact, we're richer and more stable than most republics). If we can choose between monarchy and republic after his death, I will choose republic.


----------



## elpoderoso

I don't think the royal family play any useful role here in the U.k, if this country is supposed to be a Democratic, tolerant meritocracy (so sayeth Blair) why are members of only _one_ family able/allowed to become head of state? 
Some will argue that the royal family help bring in tourists to this country, well, why not keep the palaces and the changing of the guard for the tourists?it seems tourism in Egypt is doing ok without a Royal family.


----------



## clairanne

hi

I do not think many Brits think about the royals very much at all - they are considered to be a waste of space by some, but as they have no power it is not really an issue. My husband is a confirmed republican and I am not bothered either way but, if pushed, I would probably say that we keep the Queen and bin the rest of the hangers on. She is really like everyone's favourite granny so you have to love her really.  It must be difficult living in her world - They build a special lavatory for her when she visits places and she must think the whole country smells permanently of white paint!


----------



## Athaulf

alexacohen said:


> Hello:
> I cannot write what I think about the Spanish royal family because I would be banned.
> The Spanish constitution says that all Spaniards are equals before the law, except the royal family.
> "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others"



But unless you believe that political power and privilege should not exist at all (which would mean that you're an anarchist of some sort), I don't see why this objection should be aimed specifically against royalty. A political system of any kind assigns various powers, privileges, and immunities to certain people that others don't enjoy. I understand that someone can argue against monarchy because it's (supposedly) bad for freedom, prosperity, etc. in practice. However, the objection that it's bad because it implies in principle an inequality of power and privilege can be equally applied against any other political system as well.


----------



## alexacohen

Athaulf said:


> I don't see why this objection should be aimed specifically against royalty. A political system of any kind assigns various powers, privileges, and immunities to certain people that others don't enjoy.


I do.
Kings and queens have these privileges simply because they're_ born_. 
Politicians, as far as I know, don't have any kind of privileges because they're born. And since they're born.
And politicians, if they are not re elected, lose their privileges.
Kings and royal family have these privileges for life.
And we are paying both a royal family and a president. Each family in their own palace.
It should be either a president, or a king. Not both.
It is my point of view and mine only.
Alexa


----------



## panjabigator

In your respective countries, is it at all considered inappropriate to voice your concerns on the royal family?


----------



## alexacohen

panjabigator said:


> In your respective countries, is it at all considered inappropriate to voice your concerns on the royal family?


Panjabigator, it's considered OK to criticize the royal family.
Spanish royal family members are a bunch of
AlfaRomeoSierraEchoHotelLimaEchoSierra
Alexa


----------



## Kajjo

panjabigator said:


> How important is your countries royalty to you?


We do not have any royals anymore in Germany.

I am very opposed to the notion that certain people are special just because they are born. Royalty is fundamentally an immoral system, comparable to issues like slavery or racism with regards to its justification and consequences. Royalty is highly anachronistic and incompatible to the modern world of reason, justice and democracy.



> Paying taxes to a figure head who has no power?


I believe that the  "figure-head" problem is not central, but the fact that people are head just because of who are their parents and not because of own merits. Also they cannot be exchanged if they misbehave or are just incompentent. The German president is only a little bit more than a figure head, but he is elected democratically and till now all had merits justifying their position.

I believe that modern royalty does not consume too much money compared to a nation's budget, though. The money issue is not predominant and presidents or kings are probably equally expensive.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

I support Spanish monarchy. It is a moderator power. The time that Spain have not been a monarchy it has been an absolute disaster (1st and 2nd Republic and Franco dictatorship).

About the cost, it is about the same as having a Republic President.


----------



## alexacohen

Fernando said:


> I support Spanish monarchy. It is a moderator power. The time that Spain have not been a monarchy it has been an absolute disaster (1st and 2nd Republic and Franco dictatorship).
> 
> About the cost, it is about the same as having a Republic President.


In fact we're paying both.
Alexa


----------



## BlackDragon

Kajjo, in reply to your statement about the German Royal family. The majority of German Royals were forced into hiding after the first and second world wars. This is no offence to Germans at all, but it was Hitler's influence that drove the Royals in Germany into becoming more tyrannical. After the fall of the Third Reich, the royals had to "dissappear" for fear of their lives. It was not neccessarilly their fault, but they could not exist in the conventional sense.
Royals themselves are not bad people, more often than not the fault lies with those that advise and influence them.


----------



## Kajjo

BlackDragon said:


> Kajjo, in reply to your statement about the German Royal family.


Sure, there will be living relatives of what had been German royals. However, they are not anymore recognised as royals and they do not have any role in public affairs or opinon. German rubbish magazines (you know, those with stupid details about celebrities of any kind) focus on British, Spanish and Skandinavian royals to fill the gap.

Kajjo


----------



## BlackDragon

Some Royals just have to stay secret i suppose... If you were a royal what would you do? How would you opperate in this modern society? What would you concern yourself with?


----------



## BlackDragon

Also what about Queen Victoria and Prince Albert? They both had German Ancestry lol.


----------



## Fernando

alexacohen said:


> In fact we're paying both.
> Alexa



No, we are paying a President of the Government (ZP). Frenchs, Germans and Italians are paying both (President of the Government and the Republic).


----------



## xrayspex

_If you were a royal what would you do? How would you opperate in this modern society? What would you concern yourself with?_


I'd spend my time collecting Ferarris and sleeping with supermodels.


----------



## mjmuak

I agree with every single word that Alexacohen has written. I just don't understand why this legacy of the feudalism exists nowdays. It doesn't make anysense, not anymore, they existed because of the need of someoene governing. Now we have presidents and parties to do this. If the republics in Spain didn't last, it wasn't because not having a king or a queen is chaotic, as Fernado said before, it's just that they didn't have time to make them work. but even if Fernando was right, we needed them in the past. not anymore.

some think the current king of Spain "saved" us from another dictatorship, but other think that the coup d'état that failed was instigated by him.

i don't know what to believe, we will never know the truth, but i do believe that we don't need a king


----------



## trail

BlackDragon said:


> Also what about Queen Victoria and Prince Albert? They both had German Ancestry lol.


Aren't the current ones the same?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I like our Royal family, if you had to think of things about England our Royal family is one of the first things to come up, I'd imagine, such a big part of what England is. I like the reminder of what our country used to be, like when it was run in medieval times, kings, queens, castles, knights etc.

People say they're useless etc but I am _*always *_reading about Prince Charles campaigning for carbon reductions, wildlife and conservation issues (I know he flys a LOT etc but he raises a lot of awareness)

This is why I don't mind them, Diana used her fame as a Royal to do a lot of good and hopefully in the future more will start picking up a cause.


----------



## alexacohen

Fernando said:


> No, we are paying a President of the Government (ZP). Frenchs, Germans and Italians are paying both (President of the Government and the Republic).


Let's put it another way;
We're paying a president, a vice president, a king, a queen, a future king, the wife of the mentioned future king, the sisters of the mentioned future king, the husbands of the sisters of the mentioned future king, and the offspring of them all. 
Alexa


----------



## Lugubert

Fernando said:


> I support Spanish Swedish monarchy. It is a moderator power.


Changed to my answer.


> About the cost, it is about the same as having a Republic President.


Might even be less, considering that no money is wasted on presidential campaigns.


----------



## mjmuak

really?? 
as alexacohen said, we give money to the king, the queen, the princes and princesses, their husbands and wives, their children...

in countries with  a republic president, such as Portugal, do they pay the president, his wife/her husband, their children, their children's partner...??
i don't think so


----------



## Alxmrphi

Canadians don't pay for their Queen (see here)


----------



## Fernando

Just to express it clearly:

- In republics, they can have:

a) One head of the executive power, and (at the time) Head of the State. Example: George W. Bush.

b) One head of the executive power (President of the Government/Prime Minister). Example: Dominique de Villepin./José Socrates/Merkel
   One Head of the State (President of the Republic). Example: Jacques Chirac/Anibal Cavaco Silva/Horst Köhler.


Of course, republicans can say that they would not have to pay the kins of Chirac or Cavaco or Köhler, but it is to be noticed that even in Republics people needs a "mitical" figure as Head of State with different rules of election than the head of the executive power.

Some Frenchs say that they ARE paying the expenses of some of the kins of M. Chirac (well, not exactly his relatives on a legal point-of-view), but I think I have the same evidence of this than of the allegued support by the Spanish State of 300 relatives of Mr. Juan Carlos.


----------



## LouisaB

I have to admit I'm generally in favour of the British monarchy. It's true they're wealthy, but this is through their own private property on which they pay tax like everyone else - at their own suggestion. They _are_ paid as well through the Privy Purse, but this is for the work they do, which in some cases (like Princess Anne) is enormous, and the expenses they occur doing it.I think it's valuable work too - if people didn't want them to go on doing it, why would charities/schools/institutions besiege them for visits?

I believe they also have a value beyond the ornamental. They give continuity. Visiting dignitaries may not want to meet a prime minister who's about to leave office in a few weeks time - they may well prefer to establish good relations with someone who's going to be there for years. When I was a teacher we had a visit from a Bulgarian delegation, and the Minister for Education expressed great disappointment that they were not to meet the Queen, but only Prime Minister John Major (well, actually, that's understandable...)

Also, isn't it possible to place a greater degree of trust in someone who _doesn't_ have to be elected? Not, of course, if they have genuine power, I'm not advocating a totalitarian state, but in a democracy I believe there's considerable value in it. There's no need to pander to the desires of the moment, no need to put the interests of another country first because one hopes on retirement to get a lucrative job going on lecture tours there. The Royal Family have nothing to gain from anyone, so at least one can look for integrity. Of course, we _ought_ to have that in our polititicans too, but in practice....?????

Louisa


----------



## Alxmrphi

You raised some great points there Louise! I do agree about not having to be elected means you don't have other evil motives.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> Royalty is fundamentally an immoral system, comparable to issues like slavery or racism with regards to its justification and consequences. Royalty is highly anachronistic and incompatible to the modern world of reason, justice and democracy.



The actual historical experience of what happened soon after Germans abolished their monarchy suggests otherwise. Just like in Russia at about the same time, and in France 130 years earlier.


----------



## ernest_

I'm looking forward to the day that we will have to take the dust off the guillotine.


----------



## Athaulf

alexacohen said:


> Kings and queens have these privileges simply because they're_ born_.
> Politicians, as far as I know, don't have any kind of privileges because they're born. And since they're born.
> And politicians, if they are not re elected, lose their privileges.
> Kings and royal family have these privileges for life.



But when I observe what kind of power over my life various government officials are wielding, it's pretty irrelevant to me how exactly they acquired this power. All that matters to me is how this power is exercised in practice and how  it actually affects my life. If a monarchy leads to a greater level of individual freedom and economic prosperity in practice, I will gladly support such a system, and I believe that it would be foolish to oppose it merely because it distributes inborn privileges in a somewhat more explicit way than some other political systems. This doesn't mean that I necessarily  support monarchy -- only that I think it's irrational to oppose it merely on ideological, rather than practical grounds. 

For example, when I observe the history the country where I come from (Croatia), I find that the political system of the Habsburg Monarcy a century ago was far better for our country than any of those that came later. I certainly wish that our Monarchy stayed in power until the present day, because it would have meant far more peace, freedom, and prosperity for the country compared to what actually happened historically. The history eventually showed that those who fought against our Monarchy for whatever ideological reason, and finally managed to destroy it, eventually brought only misery, death, and destruction onto their peoples in the long run. That goes for any of the dozens of different nationalities that lived under the Habsburg crown.


----------



## Athaulf

BlackDragon said:


> Kajjo, in reply to your statement about the German Royal family. The majority of German Royals were forced into hiding after the first and second world wars. This is no offence to Germans at all, but it was Hitler's influence that drove the Royals in Germany into becoming more tyrannical. After the fall of the Third Reich, the royals had to "dissappear" for fear of their lives. It was not neccessarilly their fault, but they could not exist in the conventional sense.
> Royals themselves are not bad people, more often than not the fault lies with those that advise and influence them.



I think you got something mixed up really badly. German royals had to escape the country after the _First _World War, not the second one. 

After the First World War, Germans exiled their monarch and established a democratic republic (the events of 1918/1919 were actually quite complicated, with a failed socialist revolution and a failed military coup, but that was the final outcome). Hitler came to power through elections in 1933 and transformed this democratic republican system, not a monarchy, into his totalitarian state. The Nazis themselves were extremely hostile to any symbols and supporters of the old monarchist political order. In fact, the only serious resistance to Nazis once they established power came from the circles of the old German nobility, who was by that time stripped of any power and privileges.


----------



## alexacohen

Athaulf said:


> For example, when I observe the history the country where I come from (Croatia), I find that the political system of the Habsburg Monarcy a century ago was far better for our country than any of those that came later. I certainly wish that our Monarchy stayed in power until the present day, because it would have meant far more peace, freedom, and prosperity for the country compared to what actually happened historically. The history eventually showed that those who fought against our Monarchy for whatever ideological reason, and finally managed to destroy it, eventually brought only misery, death, and destruction onto their peoples in the long run. That goes for any of the dozens of different nationalities that lived under the Habsburg crown.


But you are talking about your own country and your own monarchy.
I am talking about mine.
I know nothing about Croatia, except that it is a beautiful country. Full Stop.
But I do know the history of my own country, and the fact is that my country decided, last century, to be a Republic.
The king had to leave. And the royal family as well.
Then there was a coup d'état and we had a dictator for almost 30 years.
The king we have is not, in fact, the heir to any monarchy. Spain was not a monarchy and his father was not a king.
He is the heir of a dictator. Because it was the dictator who handled him the crown.
*P.S*. Ernest, don't forget to call me that day!
Alexa


----------



## panjabigator

His grandfather, however, _was_ King, correct?


----------



## Athaulf

alexacohen said:


> But you are talking about your own country and your own monarchy.
> I am talking about mine.



But my remarks weren't directed at anything that might be specific to the case of Spain. I was replying to your comment that monarchies are inherently undesirable because they imply an inborn inequality of power and privilege, and my arguments were directed solely against such an attitude (which was also displayed by several other people in this thread). 

As for the specific case of Spain, I don't know enough about Spanish history to have any strong opinions.


----------



## alexacohen

panjabigator said:


> His grandfather, however, _was_ King, correct?


Correct.
But he renounced the crown.
His son did not have any crown, was not king, and didn't have any right to the crown.
Our current king is the heir of a dictator. 
Alexa


----------



## Athaulf

mjmuak said:


> really??
> as alexacohen said, we give money to the king, the queen, the princes and princesses, their husbands and wives, their children...
> 
> in countries with  a republic president, such as Portugal, do they pay the president, his wife/her husband, their children, their children's partner...??
> i don't think so



Considering how many people live effectively as parasites on the government budget in every country (and I'm not talking about welfare cases here, but about people making very good livings and even fortunes), and how taxpayer money is squandered left, right, and center just about everywhere, I don't think there's any rational reason to be particularly concerned about several million a year spent on the monarchy. Besides, do any of you people actually believe that your taxes would be lower, or that this money would be spent on more useful purposes if monarchy were abolished?!


----------



## Fernando

alexacohen said:


> Correct.
> But he renounced the crown.
> His son did not have any crown, was not king, and didn't have any right to the crown.
> Our current king is the heir of a dictator.
> Alexa



The hard true is that, along the history of Spain, we have had the following periods without monarchy:

1873-74: First Republic. Absolute disaster.

1931-1975: 2nd Republic (Disaster), Civil War and Franco Dictatorship.

By comparison, the Restauration (1874-1931) and democracy (1975-today) are periods of peace, stability, freedom and growth.

And, please, drop the references to the guillotine. In France they began with Mme. Guillotine and they did not know how to stop. Well, Napoleon (a dictator) stopped it.


----------



## ernest_

Alex_Murphy said:


> I like our Royal family, if you had to think of things about England our Royal family is one of the first things to come up, I'd imagine, such a big part of what England is. I like the reminder of what our country used to be, like when it was run in medieval times, kings, queens, castles, knights etc.



You mean a society in which a wealthy elitist minority had a God-given right to steal from the poor, so that they could ride horses, go hunting, have sexual affairs with beautiful, young ladies, while the populace, kept in a state of uttermost ignorance, moral and material deprivation, had to work like slaves, suffer deadly plagues, horrific STDs, and starve to death?  Oh, yes, those were great days.


----------



## LouisaB

ernest_ said:


> You mean a society in which an elitist minority had a God-given right to steal from the ordinary people, so that they could ride horses, go hunting, have sexual affairs with beautiful, young ladies, while the populace, kept in a state of uttermost ignorance, moral and material deprivation, had to work like slaves, suffer deadly plagues, horrific STDs, and starve to death? Oh, yes, those were great days.


 
You're right, ernest, they were terrible days in many ways. There is much about them no-one would want to remember. However, I don't see any harm in people still enjoying the pageantry of those days, do you? I certainly share Alex's pleasure in it - and so do a pretty steady stream of tourists. Can't we keep an affection for the colourful aspects of our past, while condemning the worse aspects of it in the most sincere way possible, ie by stamping them out? That's what's happened in the UK.

What _is_ perhaps dangerous is when we allow memory of how dreadful things used to be to taint our perception of what they are _now_. For example, I regularly encounter people in the UK who honestly believe the Royal Family derive all their money from the tax payer, because they still have some lingering sense of an 'elitist minority stealing from the ordinary people'. Old prejudices die very hard, even in the face of hard facts. I should stress I'm _not_ in any way referring to you - you make a very valid point here I'm attempting to answer - but there really are such people out there. These days, if there's any face-grinding going on in this country, it's the public subjecting its monarchy to constant (and often ill-informed) abuse via the media, to which traditionally the monarchy have no right of reply.

Louisa


----------



## Kajjo

Fernando said:


> Of course, republicans can say that they would not have to pay the kins of Chirac or Cavaco or Köhler, but it is to be noticed that even in Republics people needs a "mitical" figure as Head of State with different rules of election than the head of the executive power.


Well, this is not predominantly about money, but about competence and democracy. People who are head of state just because they are related to some ancestors does not at all guarantee competence and it is contrary to democracy at a very fundamental level.

Royalty continues a chain of thought similarly found in slavery and racism: That people are different because of the ancestry and right-of-birth. I am opposed to such notions.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

LouisaB said:


> I have to admit I'm generally in favour of the British monarchy. It's true they're wealthy, but this is through their own private property


Well, the question is how the royals and lower nobility came to possess of these properties in the first place! It was a highly undemocratic, unfair process long ago when simple citizens and farmers did not count much and suffered extremely by the principles of nobility. Whatever properties royals possess today, it probably should be the people's property!



> I believe they also have a value beyond the ornamental. They give continuity.


Yes, you are right. Royals actually provide some continuity, but individual royals are very different from generation to generation, so there is no obligatory continuity -- maybe we were just lucky in the 20th and 21st century so far?



> Also, isn't it possible to place a greater degree of trust in someone who _doesn't_ have to be elected?


Yes, I see your point. But only if the same royals are competent. Which is a random outcome.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> The actual historical experience of what happened soon after Germans abolished their monarchy suggests otherwise. Just like in Russia at about the same time, and in France 130 years earlier.


Well, it might _suggest_ things to you. It surely does not to me. Upheaval and liberation from highly undemocratic and unfair situations has led to excessive abuse, but that does not justify the bad and inhumane systems that existed before.

If you are fond of such simple comparisons, just review the recent 60 years of peace in Europe -- never had monarchs less influence and never before we had more freedom, peace and progress in Europe. 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> If a monarchy leads to a greater level of individual freedom and economic prosperity in practice, I will gladly support such a system, and I believe that it would be foolish to oppose it merely because it distributes inborn privileges in a somewhat more explicit way than some other political systems. This doesn't mean that I necessarily  support monarchy -- only that I think it's irrational to oppose it merely on ideological, rather than practical grounds.


An excellent monarch or dictator is the best a people can have. Unfortunately, history teaches that those are extremely rare.

Bad monarchs or dictators are the worst that can happen to a people. Unfortunately, history teaches those are quite common.

Democracy is the best way to ensure not to have a bad monarch or dictator. That's why I am in favor of democracy rather than dictators or monarchs.

Kajjo


----------



## TRG

I think it is generally a mistake to judge the past based on contemporary moral standards.  Human progress necessarily relegates past social theories and methods of government to the intellectual junk yard.  We learn from our history, and one of the things we have learned is that no one wants a monarchal   form of government.  That some countries wish to preserve some remnants of their monarchal past is their own business and they can abolish it whenever they see fit.

BTW, yesterday Queen Elizabeth II was in Virgina to commemorate  the founding of the colony at Jamestown  400 years ago.  She gave a short speech to the Virgina legislature.  It was a good speech and I was impressed that she was able to do what she did given her age of 81.  So I say, long live the Queen!


----------



## Alxmrphi

ernest_ said:


> You mean a society in which a wealthy elitist minority had a God-given right to steal from the poor, so that they could ride horses, go hunting, have sexual affairs with beautiful, young ladies, while the populace, kept in a state of uttermost ignorance, moral and material deprivation, had to work like slaves, suffer deadly plagues, horrific STDs, and starve to death? Oh, yes, those were great days.



Yep!



			
				TRG said:
			
		

> I think it is generally a mistake to judge the past based on contemporary moral standards..



100% agree, I always bring this up when people speak of barbaric times in the past, and I also watched that speech TRG, I'm glad you liked it.
I always fear Americans don't understand what it is like to have a royal family and most just make silly assumptions (not in places like here but in chatrooms and other online forums).


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> You mean a society in which a wealthy elitist minority had a God-given right to steal from the poor, so that they could ride horses, go hunting, have sexual affairs with beautiful, young ladies, while the populace, kept in a state of uttermost ignorance, moral and material deprivation, had to work like slaves, suffer deadly plagues, horrific STDs, and starve to death?  Oh, yes, those were great days.



I don't see anything specific to monarchy in this description. In fact, the overwhelming majority of countries that have resembled this description in recent history have been republics. This is not to say that there haven't been such monarchies, of course, but you are certainly misdiagnosing the real causes of human problems and sufferings.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> Well, it might _suggest_ things to you. It surely does not to me. Upheaval and liberation from highly undemocratic and unfair situations has led to excessive abuse, but that does not justify the bad and inhumane systems that existed before.



Where I come from, our monarchy from a century ago was certainly better and more humane than any of the political systems that came subsequently (and there have been four of them since!). 



> If you are fond of such simple comparisons, just review the recent 60 years of peace in Europe -- never had monarchs less influence and never before we had more freedom, peace and progress in Europe.


And in the years preceding those 60 years, we had tyranny and slaughter also on a scale never seen in Europe. And the political systems that brought that disaster definitely weren't monarchies. In fact, the only major European power in which totalitarian ideologies never took much hold -- by which I mean the U.K., of course -- was the most ancient European monarchy, certainly not by accident. 

Furthermore, for a great part of those 60 years, Germany was _de facto_ a protectorate under foreign occupation, and even today its political system (in my opinion) critically rests on the strict prohibitions on extremist ideologies that forcibly prevent the repetition of the Weimar disaster. (Compare that with a republic that rests on truly stable ancient institutions like the U.S., where extremists are free to trumpet their propaganda as much as they want, but nobody is interested in them.)



> An excellent monarch or dictator is the best a people can have. Unfortunately, history teaches that those are extremely rare.
> 
> Bad monarchs or dictators are the worst that can happen to a people. Unfortunately, history teaches those are quite common.
> 
> Democracy is the best way to ensure not to have a bad monarch or dictator. That's why I am in favor of democracy rather than dictators or monarchs.


Dictators and monarchs are two extremely different species. You seem to imagine a monarchy as simply a hereditary dictatorship, but this is completely false. And I'm not talking about some idealized monarchy, but about the way concrete monarchies have worked historically.

First, no monarch ever wielded such absolute personal power as the 20th and 21st century dictators like Stalin, Franco, Tito, or whoever you can think of. I'll be glad to refute any counterexamples. Louis _"L'État, c'est moi"_ XIV? Suffice to say that it was outside his power to either tax the incomes of the rich or to conscript the common folk into the army. It's easy to pretend to be absolute by claiming theoretical absolute powers and then ordering the people to do whatever they would be doing anyway.

Second, most monarchies in recent history have been constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch doesn't have dictatorial powers at all. And there is certainly a lot to be said in favor of a constitutional monarchy as a political system -- in fact, most of the world's most free and prosperous states are still constitutional monarchies, and even if today their monarchs have effectively zero power, there are strong indications that their monarchical systems have been the key to their success in the past. 

Of course,  I'm not  a principled monarchist who would always prefer a monarchy to a republic as a matter of principle. I am merely trying to show that traditional institutions are often being unjustly smeared because they don't conform to some fashionable ideological principles, even in cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that abolishing the monarchy in favor of some more "modern" system has led to utter disasters, as in 1789 or 1917/18.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> Royalty continues a chain of thought similarly found in slavery and racism: That people are different because of the ancestry and right-of-birth. I am opposed to such notions.



So you are opposed to the fact that I can't just move to Germany whenever I want and claim all rights and privileges that you enjoy as a German citizen?  Which I could do if I could demonstrate German ancestry, or if my parents were German citizens.

If not, you'll have to admit that you are very much in favor of treating people differently because of the ancestry and the right-of-birth. You just have a different notion of which rights-of-birth are justified and desirable, and which are not.


----------



## LouisaB

Kajjo said:


> Well, the question is how the royals and lower nobility came to possess of these properties in the first place! It was a highly undemocratic, unfair process long ago when simple citizens and farmers did not count much and suffered extremely by the principles of nobility. Whatever properties royals possess today, it probably should be the people's property!


 
How many centuries would you like us to go back to make this redistribution of property?! Who's going to decide? While we're at it, presumably we should be giving countries back to their rightful rulers at the same time? (That would probably make most of us Italian... )
But seriously, I rather think the question's actually asking us to focus on the situation we have _now_ and whether we want it to continue - _not_ on whether or not any of our ancestors did questionable things. That is totally contrary to the spirit of justice.



> Yes, you are right. Royals actually provide some continuity, but individual royals are very different from generation to generation, so there is no obligatory continuity -- maybe we were just lucky in the 20th and 21st century so far?


 
Yes, but, er, isn't it the present situation we're talking about, ie the 20th and 21st centuries? Even so, isn't there more continuity in a single monarch who's there for life than a prime minister who's there for five years?



> Yes, I see your point. But only if the same royals are competent. Which is a random outcome.


 
Competent to do what, exactly? In your next posts you link monarchs and dictators - are you imagining a British monarch has any power? What competency are you looking for? Since Britain had a fully constitutional monarchy (say, since Victoria, as that's the last time a monarch attempted in even the smallest way to overule a parliament and was denied) which of our monarchs would you say have been 'incompetent' to do the job that is left them?
Are you also seriously implying the election process guarantees a leader who is competent? ??? I wish...

I'm afraid I'm horribly ignorant about other monarchies, so can only speak for the British one, but I have to say I still believe _for the job they are actually required to do_ they are of great value to us. Of course I wouldn't advocate a return to a system of absolute power for the monarchy, but then truly, I don't think anyone else is suggesting this either.

Louisa


----------



## Macunaíma

What do the British tax payers have to say about this: Will's £11K Booze Binge? Do you think it's fair that workers and ordinary people should have to pay taxes to support such gross, indecent and morally outrageous displays of decadence? 

I'll bet that after this has leaked to the press, it won't be long until a Royal aide see that HRH be photographed by the side of some token famished African children... 

I'm sorry if I have given offence to anyone. I'm not British, so perhaps I have no business saying this.

This is from _The Times_, on Prince Harry's nazi fancy dress affair:

_'The voice of the establishment, The Times, dismissed his apology as "feeble" and said he had fallen in with "a dubious group of self-indulgent young men who are apparently content with a life of pointless privilege."'_

The question to those who still support their monarchies is: what do they expect of their future generations of sovereigns? Do you believe that the younger generation of royals, who haven't experienced the wars and hardships that the ruling generation in Europe has, has the slightest idea of what they "represent"? Or is it, as The Times put it, merely _pointless privilege_ to them?

Macunaíma


----------



## jlc246

Hmmm. Does having relatives in England allow me to comment? I will certainly try not to give offense.

I doubt that the Mirror is a reliable and unbiased source of cultural information. I'm sure they make a lot of money printing stories about the Royal Family, and the more inflammatory they are, the more papers the Mirror can sell. Of course, I hasten to add, we have our own versions of both the paper and the stories! Lacking a Prince, our tabloids make do with officials, socialites, and celebrities. 

If I understood the earlier posts correctly, the money William was wasting was not from taxes. I think that point has been rather thoroughly covered.

best wishes to all - jlc


----------



## Macunaíma

Then maybe I'm the one who failed to understand the previous posts correctly. If the British Royal Family's wealth does not come from taxes (and this includes the revenues from their investments and inherited estate originated from the taxes paid by their subjects, or the subjects of their great-great-great-grandparents), where does it come from then?


----------



## _forumuser_

Thanks for asking this question! 

The very concept of aristocracy is a disgrace. It collides frontally with everything that modern societies believe in: that we are all equal, that titles and privileges should be earned not inherited at birth, that we are all born with the same rights and should be allowed to compete for what we want to achieve. Monarchy, by contrast, stands for the privileges of a few, class divisions, unequal opportunities, and ultimately racism: think about it, we're not going to see a black queen in the UK or a mixed-blood on the throne of Japan any time soon. Frankly, I wonder how these people can sleep at night, knowing their very titles and lifestyles embody everything that modern societies have rightly rejected long ago.


----------



## jlc246

(I see there is now a post in between Macunaíma's response to mine and this reply.)

Ah. I was thinking of the difference between current taxes (as in "should have to pay taxes") and other sources of wealth and income. I guess that is an interpretation based on the language. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

Of course you have a point: when a boy's grandparents have income from taxes and his family has a great deal of inherited wealth, there is a "gray/grey area" as to the question of where a particular unit of money came from. I was pointing out that the direct source of William's allowance is not likely to be from taxes. However, even if a lot of the inherited land / wealth came from winning fights or forging alliances centuries ago, there is no doubt that the original source of much of it is from people who paid tribute of some kind because they were workers and ordinary people. Also ... but I should return to the topic of how people feel about their royal families.

Please excuse me for being pedantic or aburrida in the effort to be clear.  I think I should stick to my own country. 

I think your question is interesting:


> The question to those who still support their monarchies is: what do they expect of their future generations of sovereigns? Do you believe that the younger generation of royals, who haven't experienced the wars and hardships that the ruling generation in Europe has, has the slightest idea of what they "represent"? Or is it, as The Times put it, merely _pointless privilege_ to them?


----------



## _forumuser_

One point which has not been made yet. By which mysterious process have the bearers of the most terrifying form of absolute power come to be seen as a harmless, even reassuring bunch of ordinary folks that so many hold dearer than their own kin? 

Throughout history, monarchs have always had to defend their privileges with either lies (anyone remembers the story that the right to rule is God-given?), or violence (in many places, slandering the crown is still a crime chastised with punishments ranging from fines to mutilation and execution). Now that we have the knowledge and the means to get rid of them, we can't think of life without them. Irony of history or effect of mediatic/cultural brainwashing?


----------



## jlc246

> By which mysterious process....


 By the mysterious processes of centuries of civilization. 

My country, being so young, is still working on it.

Goodnight to all - jlc


----------



## Athaulf

_forumuser_ said:


> One point which has not been made yet. By which mysterious process have the bearers of the most terrifying form of absolute power come to be seen as a harmless, even reassuring bunch of ordinary folks that so many hold dearer than their own kin?



I have already made it -- and the answer is that these "bearers of the most terrifying form of absolute power" are in fact imaginary entities that don't bear any similarity to the monarchs that have existed in actual history. It's a picture conjured up by modern popular misconceptions about history and by the propaganda of Jacobins and later ideologues with similar tendencies. 

Who was the more terrifying bearer of absolute power -- Louis XVI, or the Jacobins who killed him and then plunged the country into their Reign of Terror? And not to mention Napoleon, who then drew the entire Europe into two decades of pointless bloody and brutal wars? Was the Russian Emperor perhaps a more terrifying bearer of absolute power than Lenin and Stalin? Can you point out a single instance of a country whose monarch wielded powers that even remotely approached those of various modern dictators who have come to power in republican, sometimes even democratic systems?


----------



## _forumuser_

Athaulf said:


> I have already made it -



Sorry, I obviously missed that. But you are missing my point:

Monarchs are absolute rulers, children of privilege, ultimately quite repulsive creatures--in my opinion--in a world that I would like to see class-free. They are not simply the sweet old ladies and the charming young girls the media depict and who attract hordes of curious tourists. My grandma is a sweet old lady. My sister is a charming young girl. Royals are so much more than that!! 

Their image as friendly, ever-grinning, environment-loving folks is the simply the newest strategy for the legitimization of royalty, the one the media era has devised to replace the lies and outright violence which held up the old order. This mediatic facade is designed to hide the far more obvious fact: that there's not a single reason in the whole wide world why blue bloods should still exist. 

P.S. Can you please take out the (multiple) sarcastic references to my post? 

P.P.S. Although I think this is entirely off topic, do you want an example of a monarch who has done more evil than Napoleon? The xxxxx Emperor, that symbol of national unity, that loving father of the homeland that was used (with his consent) by war-hungry military officials and greedy industrialists to engage the whole country down to the last child in the war effort. I omit the name of the country because I know that violent groups of ultra-nationalists monitor the web to locate critics of the monarchy. So much for the nice old ladies.


----------



## Athaulf

_forumuser_ said:


> Monarchs are absolute rulers, children of privilege, ultimately quite repulsive creatures--in my opinion--in a world that I would like to see class-free. They are not simply the sweet old ladies and the charming young girls the media depict and attract hordes of curious tourists. My grandma is a sweet old lady. My sister is a charming young girl. Royals are so much more than that!!
> 
> Their image as friendly, ever-grinning, environment-loving folks is the simply the newest strategy for the legitimization of royalty, the one the media era has devised to replace the lies and outright violence which held up the old order. This mediatic facade is designed to hide the far more obvious fact: that there's not a single reason in the whole wide world why blue bloods should still exist.



But the modern political systems, democratic or not, are still based on vast differences of political power and privilege, some of them explicitly based on birthright, some less so. However, as long as these differences are viewed as proper according to the prevailing ideologies, people will view them as entirely justified and necessary and will defend them with enthusiasm against any objection, often by simply dismissing people who object to them as insane. Before pouring scorn on the customs and institutions of the past ages, people usually neglect to subject their own preferred political systems and ideologies to the same level of scrutiny.


----------



## _forumuser_

Athaulf said:


> But the modern political systems, democratic or not, are still based on vast differences of political power and privilege, some of them explicitly based on birthright, some less so. However, as long as these differences are viewed as proper according to the prevailing ideologies, people will view them as entirely justified and necessary and will defend them with enthusiasm against any objection, often by simply dismissing people who object to them as insane. Before pouring scorn on the customs and institutions of the past ages, people usually neglect to subject their own preferred political systems and ideologies to the same level of scrutiny.



I agree with both points. 1) Removing monarchs is not going to free the world from inequality. 2) The present world has so much more in common with the past's than many like to admit. However, with regard to point one: crowns, scepters, blood lineages, state marriages and funerals, crown princes, royal birthdays, royal guards .... Am I seeing things again, or do these things still really exist???


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> I don't see anything specific to monarchy in this description.



Because I wasn't describing monarchy. My comment was a joke on Mr Murphy's remarks about how monarchy reminded him of the good old days of knights, princesses, kings and queens.



> In fact, the overwhelming majority of countries that have resembled this description in recent history have been republics. This is not to say that there haven't been such monarchies, of course, but you are certainly misdiagnosing the real causes of human problems and sufferings.


I wasn't diagnosing anything either, but I do agree with you that it would've been a mistake, should I have done so. Why?  Because the very notions of monarchy and republic are utterly unscientific, at least for the purpose of this conversation.  A monarch with absolute powers, who would fall into the category of dictator, has little to do with a constitutional monarch with virtually no powers and occupations other than giving a fatuous speech on Christmas day. Therefore it makes no sense to talk in such broad terms when comparing different forms of government.

Thing is, today's western monarchies are no different from any republic in most respects, except for the fact that there's one civil servant that is designated arbitrarily (not on the basis of their own merits), that is not subject to public scrutiny and that in effect is above the law, thus contravening the principle of equality among citizens before the law and the principle of equality of opportunity. In the light of these facts it should obvious that the burden of proof is on the monarchists' side. It's they who have to convince the rest of us that not having equality of rights is indeed a good thing.


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> In fact, the only major European power in which totalitarian ideologies never took much hold -- by which I mean the U.K., of course -- was the most ancient European monarchy, certainly not by accident.



Maybe the fact that Britain is an island, thus enjoying an excellent natural protection against invaders, has something to do with it.



> (Compare that with a republic that rests on truly stable ancient institutions like the U.S., where extremists are free to trumpet their propaganda as much as they want, but nobody is interested in them.)


I would like to see the US in the middle of the European continent, surrounded by a myriad of nations of about its same size. Chances are that we wouldn't be talking about the stability of its institutions right now.


----------



## Argónida

Fernando said:


> The hard true is that, along the history of Spain, we have had the following periods without monarchy:
> 
> 1873-74: First Republic. Absolute disaster.
> 
> 1931-1975: 2nd Republic (Disaster), Civil War and Franco Dictatorship.
> 
> By comparison, the Restauration (1874-1931) and democracy (1975-today) are periods of peace, stability, freedom and growth.
> 
> And, please, drop the references to the guillotine. In France they began with Mme. Guillotine and they did not know how to stop. Well, Napoleon (a dictator) stopped it.


 
You say your statements are the hard true and you use them as arguments, but they are only your opinion.

2nd Republic was not a disaster, in fact the disaster was the bloody coup d'état that put an end to the Republic. That is, the wrong thing wasn't the Republic but the end of the Republic, which brought much more culture, freedom, democracy, healthy and development to the Spanish people (particularly to the working class) than ever. I can understand, however, upper class, nobility and Church didn't like 2nd Republic at all because they lost most of their unfair privileges.

On the other hand, I agree with you about the guillotine matter. I think it's not necessary. Some plane tickets are enough.


----------



## LouisaB

ernest_ said:


> Thing is, today's western monarchies are no different from any republic in most respects, except for the fact that there's one civil servant that is designated arbitrarily (not on the basis of their own merits), that is not subject to public scrutiny and that in effect is above the law, thus contravening the principle of equality among citizens before the law and the principle of equality of opportunity.


 
So this is your sole objection to monarchy - their being 'not subject to public scrutiny, and in effect above the law'?

But, ernest - neither of those charges are true! Wherever did you come across them? 

1. The monarchy in the UK is subject to _more_ public scrutiny, not _less_ than any other citizen. I don't need to publish lists of exactly how much work I've done every year, how many presents I've received, and I don't need to disclose my tax affairs to anyone other than the taxman. I can go out at night without being followed by photographers. My children could misbehave or do those things teenagers do the world over without the national press screaming about his outrageous and appalling they are. Nobody rushes to print the contents of my dustbins either (which is just as well).

2. _Nobody_ in the UK is above the law - unless, of course, they're an elected prime minister who appoints and gives knighthoods to the Attorney General, who will then decide if a case needs to go to trial or not. In theory, it might be difficult to subject a monarch to trial by jury, because of our concept of a 'jury of peers' - is that perhaps what's given you this idea? But in practice, there would be many ways round it (just as there are when impeaching a president). The most likely is the next heir to the throne would be the figurehead (without actual involvement), while the Lord Chancellor conducted the trial. But there is nothing whatsoever in our constitution, nor in what has happened in practice to suggest a monarch is 'above the law', and I'm fascinated by your assumption that there is. In fact, the monarchy are arguably fettered by even _more_ laws than the rest of us - hence the problems when Charles married a divorcee (which is not a problem for anyone else in the UK).

So what can possibly be your objections? If the UK chooses to retain its monarchy, and pays it a risibly small amount to do huge public service, while giving it no power at all and subjecting it to greater restrictions than anyone else, how on earth can you mind about that? And - forgive me - why should the burden of proof be on us to justify it??? I wouldn't dream of demanding another country justify what public servants it employs - unless of course they're actively doing harm, which is not the case here. I'm sorry, ernest, I'm trying really hard, but I just don't get it!

Louisa


----------



## _forumuser_

LouisaB said:


> So what can possibly be your objections?


 
You can't be serious. What can possibly be your reasons to support caste divisions between nobles and commoners in 2007??? You must be a noble, lucky you!


----------



## curly

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being thick here, but what would the difference to the royal family themselves if they were no longer royalty? Would the suddenly not be rich? Would they suddenly lose power? Would the Queen suddenly stop giving speeches? Surely all the privleges that they enjoy are down to people liking them and not any real laws that says the Queen must give speechs or that the royal family must be rich.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Very good point curly but I think it's more down to peoples acceptance and understanding of tradition rather than the personalities of the actual Royal family at the time.


----------



## ernest_

LouisaB said:


> So this is your sole objection to monarchy - their being 'not subject to public scrutiny, and in effect above the law'?



Yes, that and having a monopoly on a public sector job, which is particularly outrageous.



> 1. The monarchy in the UK is subject to _more_ public scrutiny, not _less_ than any other citizen.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 2. _Nobody_ in the UK is above the law


In Spain, it doesn't go like this. You can't criticise the king in public. There was a well-known journalist in Catalonia who began to make jokes on the telly about the king and his offspring not being precisely the smartest people under the sun. So what happened to him?  He was condemned to ostracism. Just like that. All of a sudden, he disappeared from the media scene. That was a lesson that everybody here has learnt: don't f....k about with the king or you'll be in trouble (and pardon my French).

And there are a lot of stories about the king (who has stashed quite a bit of a fortune since he came here, although he was basically skint when he arrived) and his dirty businesses, but you never know for sure because, you know, I suppose judges have more important matters to deal with.


----------



## RedRag

The royal family are figureheads that represent the country.

If you try to demean the figurehead you are effectively demeaning the country. The figurehead is not the person but the position they hold The figurehead of the the UK is not Elizabeth Windsor, rather the Queen. Unfortunatly it is impossible to separate the two, until after she's dead. I don't think people are expected to pay reverence to dead monarchs, you can dig up what you like.

In the end the system isn't perfect but countries need a figurehead and royalty in my opinion, make better figureheads than anyone else.


----------



## alexacohen

ernest_ said:


> Yes, that and having a monopoly on a public sector job, which is particularly outrageous.
> 
> In Spain, it doesn't go like this. You can't criticise the king in public. There was a well-known journalist in Catalonia who began to make jokes on the telly about the king and his offspring not being precisely the smartest people under the sun. So what happened to him? He was condemned to ostracism. Just like that. All of a sudden, he disappeared from the media scene. That was a lesson that everybody here has learnt: don't fuck about with the king or you'll be in trouble (and pardon my French).
> 
> And there are a lot of stories about the king (who has stashed quite a bit of a fortune since he came here, although he was basically skint when he arrived) and his dirty businesses, but you never know for sure because, you know, I suppose judges have more important matters to deal with.


Maybe the stories you mention, Ernest, cannot be proved. After all, the king is above the law.
But one thing can be proved beyond doubt:
Th king of Spain swore loyalty to a dictator, swore to keep the laws made by a dictator, accepted the title of prince of Asturias (which he didn't have) from a dictator, received the crown form a dictator.
He is not the heir to any king. He is the heir of Franco I the Conqueror. 
I am purposely not answering any comments about dictatorships being good.
I'm afraid what I think would not pass censorship.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

Argónida said:


> You say your statements are the hard true and you use them as arguments, but they are only your opinion.
> 
> 2nd Republic was not a disaster, in fact the disaster was the bloody coup d'état that put an end to the Republic. That is, the wrong thing wasn't the Republic but the end of the Republic, which brought much more culture, freedom, democracy, healthy and development to the Spanish people (particularly to the working class) than ever. I can understand, however, upper class, nobility and Church didn't like 2nd Republic at all because they lost most of their unfair privileges.
> 
> On the other hand, I agree with you about the guillotine matter. I think it's not necessary. Some plane tickets are enough.


Good point, Argónida. I was too angry to answer.
I would accept plane tickets (it's quite hard work to oil the screws of the guillotine) as long as they are tourist class and low cost.
Alexa


----------



## don maico

RedRag said:


> The royal family are figureheads that represent the country.
> 
> If you try to demean the figurehead you are effectively demeaning the country. The figurehead is not the person but the position they hold The figurehead of the the UK is not Elizabeth Windsor, rather the Queen. Unfortunatly it is impossible to separate the two, until after she's dead. I don't think people are expected to pay reverence to dead monarchs, you can dig up what you like.
> 
> In the end the system isn't perfect but countries need a figurehead and royalty in my opinion, make better figureheads than anyone else.


Except there were a number of monarchs who if they had been elected Presidents would have been ousted - George the lV for eg. Even Eddie the Vlll was only forced out for marrying a divorcee when he should have been booted for being a fascist sympathiser, amongst other things. 
Demeaning an institution one profoundly disagrees with does in no way mean one is demeaning ones country.The Queen is NOT the country.


----------



## beclija

Athaulf said:


> Where I come from, our monarchy from a century ago was certainly better and more humane than any of the political systems that came subsequently (and there have been four of them since!).


You seem to be ignoring that one of the four subsequent political systems was a monarchy as well - SHS/First Yugoslavia. Formally, even NDH was a monarchy! 
Besides, the monarchy whose humanity you're pointing out was, among other things: A catholic state by constitution that had, for centuries, refused not only equal rights but even as much as right to practice their religion to non-Catholic faiths, and main agent of the counterreformation which, in some areas, forced over half of the population to emigrate to freeer regions and thus is probably the main reason for the relative backwardness of much of their territory up to at least quite recently. A major agent in the 30 years war, the devastations of which caused Central Europe to fall far behind Western Europe in its political and economic development. A state with a long history of aggressive territorial politics. A state in which the revolt of 1848-9 was supressed more bloodily than elsewhere in Europe. 
And, finally, a state which set off WW I, the largest slaughter Europe had seen to that date, in the course of which it put to camps or randomly executed thousands of its own citizens, civilians of suspicious ethnic background (mainly Serbs and Ruthenians). A country let drew young men into a war that had nothing to do with their lifes and let the general populace starve during the ensuing shortages, while the nobility and economic and military elite led a high life as ever before, expecting even higher benefits from the outcome of the war, and arranged for their sons to be saved from the army. (And I am not even saying that the Central Powers were on the "wrong side".) I'm wondering how humane that is?

Getting rid of them was the only correct thing to do in 1919. Since then we have a law stating that members of the family can come to Austria only if they sign a document stating that they reject any claims whatsoever on the throne - very reasonable, I think. No country would admit a foreigner whose obvious aim is to smash the foundations of the constitution and make himself head of the new state.



Athaulf said:


> In fact, the only major European power in which totalitarian ideologies never took much hold -- by which I mean the U.K., of course -- was the most ancient European monarchy, certainly not by accident.


The most ancient European monarchy? England has had two civil wars in the 15th and 17th centuries. I don't much believe in accidents, so it probably wasn't accident that the U.K. was relatively saved from totalitarianism. But unless you provide a mechanism by which being a monarchy would positively influence political processes, I believe the correlation is rather accidental. Other possible reasons include: geography (relative isolation), a relatively advanced civil society due to certain developments having taken place a century or two earlier than in the rest of Europe (in a time when all European states were equally monarchies), a long tradition of _demoting _the monarch's role, and a relatively secure economic situation due to the excessive exploitation of the colonies.


Athaulf said:


> (Compare that with a republic that rests on truly stable ancient institutions like the U.S., where extremists are free to trumpet their propaganda as much as they want, but nobody is interested in them.)


Nobody seems to be interested in the non-extremists either, looking at election turnouts.



Athaulf said:


> Dictators and monarchs are two extremely different species. You seem to imagine a monarchy as simply a hereditary dictatorship, but this is completely false. And I'm not talking about some idealized monarchy, but about the way concrete monarchies have worked historically.


Monarchs can afford to behave more moderately because their dictatorship is consolidated enough so that hardly anyone seriously questions it, while usurpators most take more drastic measures to ensure a similar degree of acceptance. But that is not really a principal distinction. The only principled distinction I can detect is that a dictator must have at least some strong qualities - charisma and/or strategic skills - while a king will still be a king if he's totally dumb.


----------



## Kajjo

> And in the years preceding those 60 years, we had tyranny and slaughter also on a scale never seen in Europe. And the political systems that brought that disaster definitely weren't monarchies. In fact, the only major European power in which totalitarian ideologies never took much hold -- by which I mean the U.K., of course -- was the most ancient European monarchy, certainly not by accident.


You entirely ignore the fact how monarchies (the English, too) abused the people, made them suffer by all kinds of hardship of many a century.



> Furthermore, for a great part of those 60 years, Germany was _de facto_ a protectorate under foreign occupation, and even today its political system (in my opinion) critically rests on the strict prohibitions on extremist ideologies that forcibly prevent the repetition of the Weimar disaster. (Compare that with a republic that rests on truly stable ancient institutions like the U.S., where extremists are free to trumpet their propaganda as much as they want, but nobody is interested in them.)


You cannot seriously call the US an _ancient institution_. Do you know what _ancient_ means? The US is quite young! The German system does not at all _critically rest on  prohibitions_ -- German over-emphasizes guilt and responsibility, but that does neither make the people nor the political system _rest on prohibitions_.



> Dictators and monarchs are two extremely different species. You seem to imagine a monarchy as simply a hereditary dictatorship, but this is completely false.


Fine, that you phrase your deviating opinion in such a smooth and kind manner. 



> even if today their monarchs have effectively zero power, there are strong indications that their monarchical systems have been the key to their success in the past.


_strong indications, it suggests_, ... where is the content besides your beliefs?

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> So you are opposed to the fact that I can't just move to Germany whenever I want and claim all rights and privileges that you enjoy as a German citizen?  Which I could do if I could demonstrate German ancestry, or if my parents were German citizens.
> 
> If not, you'll have to admit that you are very much in favor of treating people differently because of the ancestry and the right-of-birth. You just have a different notion of which rights-of-birth are justified and desirable, and which are not.


Athaulf, you play with words and rhetorics, not with content. What you described here does not apply to individuals, but to whole people -- which is an entirely different issue as you surely understand easily.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

LouisaB said:


> How many centuries would you like us to go back to make this redistribution of property?! Who's going to decide? While we're at it, presumably we should be giving countries back to their rightful rulers at the same time?


Louisa, I do not favor redistributing anything, but my sentence was an answer to your statement, that today's royals mostly provide for themselves by means of their vast properties.



> But seriously, I rather think the question's actually asking us to focus on the situation we have _now_ and whether we want it to continue - _not_ on whether or not any of our ancestors did questionable things. That is totally contrary to the spirit of justice.


I don't know. Surely, we cannot undo all injustices of medieval times. But surely it could be argued that the British royals each possess only a few properties personally and all other grounds and properties are "Crown and People" rather than personal. 



> Yes, but, er, isn't it the present situation we're talking about, ie the 20th and 21st centuries? Even so, isn't there more continuity in a single monarch who's there for life than a prime minister who's there for five years?


Yes and no. What I meant by "lucky century" is e.g. the duration of the current Queen's reign. Imagine Charles becoming king for maybe 5-10 years, then his son next. No continuity here, too. I do not know the average duration of reigns of English kings, but surely you could review that. It will be longer in average, yes, but is that so important? 

 Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

_forumuser_ said:


> The very concept of aristocracy is a disgrace. It collides frontally with everything that modern societies believe in: that we are all equal, that titles and privileges should be earned not inherited at birth, that we are all born with the same rights and should be allowed to compete for what we want to achieve. Monarchy, by contrast, stands for the privileges of a few, class divisions, unequal opportunities, and ultimately racism.


Thanks for this clear words. You hit the nail on the head!

Kajjo


----------



## LouisaB

Please may I appeal for a little calm and courtesy here?

There are some very interesting arguments floating about in this thread, and I have considerable respect for Kajjo's reasoned responses. But please, could we avoid the personal gibes with no supporting argument, eg



_forumuser_ said:


> You can't be serious. What can possibly be your reasons to support caste divisions between nobles and commoners in 2007??? You must be a noble, lucky you!


 
Please could we also do without the guillotine jokes? I'm a great believer in humour as a way of lightening the tone of a potentially explosive topic, but actually I _don't_ find murder very funny. A few minutes' serious research into primary sources on the French Revolution would be enough to stop most people laughing either. I'm not making any negative comment on the Revolution itself, which the ruling classes brought pretty well entirely on themselves, but some of the atrocities committed in its name on innocents (including very young children) simply for sharing a name with somebody noble should be enough to rule this out as a subject for jokes, however innocent or well-meant - as I'm quite sure they were.

Please could we also check our facts before posting? We've already dealt with the false assumptions of all monarchies costing a lot of money, being above the law, not being subject to public scrutiny etc, but if we want to come across as authorities, can we check what we think we know first? For instance, beclija's comment on England's two civil wars - yes, we had two, but the first was in the Middle Ages between Stephen and Maud (12th century) NOT the 14th. I would guess it's actually the Wars of the Roses being referred too here. Or this from don maico's (as usual) otherwise extremely well argued and interesting post:



don maico said:


> Except there were a number of monarchs who if they had been elected Presidents would have been ousted - George the lV for eg.


 
Are you _sure_ you mean George IV? Not George III? (Please do correct me and accept my apologies if I'm wrong - I just can't see why George IV when George III is so obvious a target).

Please might we also avoid gratuitous attacks on other countries? This, for instance, is supposedly a riposte to a claim that monarchs of _the last century _in Germany have generally been better than their alternatives:



beclija said:


> Besides, the monarchy whose humanity you're pointing out was, among other things: A catholic state by constitution that had, for centuries, refused not only equal rights but even as much as right to practice their religion to non-Catholic faiths, and main agent of the counterreformation which, in some areas, forced over half of the population to emigrate to freeer regions and thus is probably the main reason for the relative backwardness of much of their territory up to at least quite recently. A major agent in the 30 years war, the devastations of which caused Central Europe to fall far behind Western Europe in its political and economic development [/quote}
> 
> The Thirty Years War took place between 1618-1648. How is this relevant to the last century - other than a cheap shot at Germany?
> 
> Or this, on the UK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and a relatively secure economic situation_ due to the excessive exploitation of the colonies_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this, on the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to be interested in the non-extremists either, looking at election turnouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an obvious answer to this post, since the country being praised as the alternative to these for having rejected its monarchy is the same country that embraced instead - a certain Adolf Hitler. Of course I could write an easy paragraph on how the atrocities committed under Hitler compare with those committed under the Kaiser - but why would I do that? It's not relevant to the question, and would just be a gratuitously nasty attack on a country for which I have a great deal of respect.
> 
> Finally, please could we knock on the head the constant comparisons between monarchs and dictators? We've already established modern monarchs have in most cases no power, in some cases limited power - while dictators have absolute power. So why do we keep saying things like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monarchs can afford to behave more moderately because their dictatorship is consolidated enough so that hardly anyone seriously questions it, while usurpators most take more drastic measures to ensure a similar degree of acceptance. But that is not really a principal distinction. The only principled distinction I can detect is that a dictator must have at least some strong qualities - charisma and/or strategic skills - while a king will still be a king if he's totally dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do apologise to everyone if I'm coming across as a pompous old bat, and I know I'm far too junior in this forum to start lecturing other people on how to post. But there's some really interesting stuff coming up on this thread, and I for one am learning a great deal. I had no idea of the corruption in the Spanish monarchy that I've learned about from ernest's posts, and I'm bound to say that under such circumstances I too would be an anti-monarchist. But I'm not going to write a 'Get Rid of The Evil Spanish Monarchy' post because I'm just not well enough informed on the subject to be so presumptious.
> 
> When people write about what they know, and what they think about the situation in their own culture, this is a great thread. I'm learning a lot - mostly from those who disagree with me. But it's reaching the point I'm almost scared to post!!
> 
> Louisa The Most Boring Forera In The World (and apologies for the longest post too!)
Click to expand...


----------



## Athaulf

beclija said:


> You seem to be ignoring that one of the four subsequent political system was a monarchy as well!



I'm not ignoring it. In fact, although the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is very much loathed by most Croats today, I think that its negative popular image is exaggerated. I would happily choose the Karađorđević monarchy over Tito's regime, and not to even mention the abomination that sprang into life during the Second World War. I think such a conclusion is entirely logical if one does a comparison unburdened by nationalist passions.

I'm certainly not disputing any of the sins of the Habsburgs that you mention (although a similar list could easily be compiled for any great power of that age). My point is merely that destroying them didn't bring greater freedom and prosperity for anyone, but only ruin and disaster. More on that below.



> Getting rid of them _[Habsburgs]_ was the only correct thing to do in 1919.


Getting rid of them however led straight into a disaster. It fragmented the Eastern Europe into a number of small states preoccupied by their petty nationalist quarrels. In such a situation, it was only a matter of time before Germany and Russia would start new wars for domination over those states, and eventually clash among themselves in a new cataclysmic conflict. I forgot the name of the historian who made the ingenious observation that the Second World War could be quite accurately named the Second War of the Austrian Succession.

You write about the lack of toleration under Habsburgs. And yet, just compare the ethnic and religious demographic map of Central and Eastern Europe under their rule with what exists today. Cities and provinces where dozens of different ethnic and religious groups flourished a century ago have been forcibly homogenized by ruthless expulsions and exterminations, because this was a necessary condition for the stability of the new nation-states. Yes, they are fairly stable now, but the price in blood was far too high in my opinion.

As for Austria itself, the "correct thing" resulted in the country being absorbed into Germany after less than 20 years, so I fail to see any great merits in this move. 



> The most ancient European monarchy? England has had two civil wars in the 15th and 17th centuries. I don't much believe in accidents, so it probably wasn't accident that the U.K. was relatively saved from totalitarianism. But unless you provide a mechanism by which being a monarchy would positively influence political processes, I believe the correlation is rather accidental.


This is a very complex topic, about which whole books could be written, but I'll try to be as brief as possible. The basic idea on which I base my conclusions is that totalitarian ideologies are inherently radical and revolutionary, and that they can flourish only when traditional political  institutions disintegrate or lose the devotion and loyalty of the population. 

Therefore, the greatest danger of dictatorship and totalitarianism looms when time-honored institutions are replaced by a new political entity that doesn't command any widespread loyalty, and which won't be zealously defended by anyone if a party of radicals starts reshaping it according to their ideological program. Nobody felt like seriously defending the Weimar Republic or Kerensky's provisional government. Both systems quickly fell prey to radicals, and the only serious opposition to the totalitarians came from the adherents of the previous old order -- Tsarists in Russia and the monarchists and the old nobility in Germany. Contrast that with Britain, in which anyone bent on radically reshaping the centuries old constitutional order just couldn't be taken seriously. 

Therefore, I'm not arguing in favor of monarchy _per se_, but in favor of time-honored traditional institutions, which can also be republican. There are plenty of historical examples where non-monarchical systems had the same excellent qualities that enabled long periods of stability, peace, and prosperity, like e.g. Switzerland or the U.S. There is nothing special about monarchy in this regard -- a monarchy that's established as a novel, artificial creation without a basis in history and tradition can also produce miserable results, like e.g. when Germany was formed in 1871.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> You cannot seriously call the US an _ancient institution_. Do you know what _ancient_ means? The US is quite young!



Compared to Germany, they are pretty ancient, even if we count only the period after the Civil War. The modern German political institutions are only about half a century old, and Germany as a country has existed only since 1871 (unless you count the Prussian Kingdom before that, but modern German institutions certainly have no continuity with it). In politics, anything reaching more than three or four generations ago can be considered as ancient for practical purposes.

But what is really important is that the U.S. republican institutions have enough basis in history and tradition to bring them the necessary stability. I certainly hope that the modern German republican institutions will eventually reach the same status (so far, they do seem to be on the right path, and perhaps they really aren't very far from that goal). However, note that these institutions could take root only because unlike the Weimar Republic, they were supported by a rather heavy-handed foreign occupational force in the critical period. And please don't get offended, but I do have the impression that the modern German political system is still not mature enough that it would survive under a complete laissez-faire in the political marketplace. 



> Athaulf, you play with words and rhetorics, not with content. What you described here does not apply to individuals, but to whole people -- which is an entirely different issue as you surely understand easily.


Believe me, I am writing my honest opinions, without any attempt to play with rhetorics. I truly see no essential moral difference between giving people inborn privileges based on nobility and giving them inborn privileges based on ethnicity, birthplace, or any other accident of birth, regardless of how wide are the classes of people to whom the privileges are given or denied. Of course, the former thing is considered as improper and unjust today, and the latter one is considered as an essential and necessary component of the modern political systems, but this is only because of the prevailing opinions of the age, not because of any logical reasons. If the institutions of the nation-state are transcended in some future age, do you believe that these things will be viewed as essentially different?


----------



## beclija

> This, for instance, is supposedly a riposte to a claim that monarchs of _the last century _in Germany have generally been better than their alternatives:


It is actually referring to the Habsburg monarchy rather than Germany. And I do find it relevant - if it is claimed that a system should be kept, although it may be dispreferrable otherwhise, for reasons of continuity and stability, then we should also keep in mind what this continuity consists of and what the stability builds on.





> The Thirty Years War took place between 1618-1648. How is this relevant to the last century - other than a cheap shot at Germany?


Again, Austrian rather than German nobility as for the evildoers and the people of Central Europe more widely as for the ones suffering the consequences.


> and a relatively secure economic situation_ due to the excessive exploitation of the colonies_.


I apologize for my inappropriate wording, but the point remains that there are many possible reasons why Britain would have been spared the wave of totalitarianism that took over most of continental Europe in the 20s and 30s that do not have anything to do with its being a monarchy. One of these is that it was relatively less struck by the world economic crisis (during which totalitarianism on the continent gained much momentum) due to the fact that it could partly rely on its colonies both for supplies and markets when trade with the other industrial countries broke down. Interestingly, France, probably the oldest Republic at the time (even though the Third Republic was only founded in 1905) did not become a totalitarian state before WW II, and also had quite some colonies.


> There is an obvious answer to this post, since the country being praised as the alternative to these for having rejected its monarchy is the same country that embraced instead - a certain Adolf Hitler.


I don't think anyone has praised Germany as an alternative. But pointing out that radicals never find much support in the US (which is again debatable, some positions by some Republicans are quite radical by European standards) is not as indicative as you'd want it to be when in fact no political movement, whether radical or not, is gaining much attention. And Germany is, I believe, not a good example for a country that rejected monarchy - The rejection of the old structures was rather superficial and a lot of the institutions of the monarchy effectively stayed in place after 1918, when compared to France or even Austria. So one might just as plausibly argue that the remainders of of the old system rather than the republican system as such made Hitler's rise possible (note that I'm not arguing that, just pointing out that the opposite argument is not very convincing to me!).


> I would guess it's actually the Wars of the Roses being referred too here.


I did mean that, and I actually checked before posting. Could you please tell me what, other than usual terminology, would disqualify the Wars of the Roses as a civil war for the purpose of establishing whether or not a monarchy has a continuous and unbroken history?


> Getting rid of them however led straight into a disaster.


I disbelieve that the situation as it was in 1918 (or in fact even before then) could have been helped by keeping them in place. Nationalism, for good or bad, had taken roots long before and was only kept relatively silent by repression, most notably in 1848-9. Even if the monarchy had nominally stayed in place, major restructurings would have been neccessary, leading to probably much the same power vacuum and much the same wars of domination.
I strongy agree that the price in blood was far to high. I don't see, though, how a retention of the monarchy could have prevented a similar outcome, if possibly with a delayal of 10 or 20 years.

In my opinion, history can tell us how to not attempt to achieve our aims, and for this it is a valuable source indeed. But we should not let it tell us what aims not to attempt in the first place - if we do so, pretty much any positive change becomes impossible, because pretty much any noble aim boasts at least one failed attempt.


----------



## _forumuser_

Athaulf said:


> I truly see no essential moral difference between giving people inborn privileges based on nobility and giving them inborn privileges based on ethnicity, birthplace, or any other accident of birth, regardless of how wide are the classes of people to whom the privileges are given or denied.


 
You may not see it, but the difference is there, huge and undeniable: this is not just any privilege we are talking about here, private matters like inheriting the family's fortune or a mother's job. We are talking about a PUBLIC privilege, the right to rule over or represent the will of a country and its mass of citizens. Even with all the privileges of his birth, W. had to fight his way to the White House: he had to convince his father's supporters that he was up to the task (wonder how he was able to do that ), clear all the stages that lead to a presidential candidacy, and finally win a national election against highly qualified candidates. A crown prince simply ascends to the throne when the time comes because it's his right as the son of a former King. You can be born rich, bilingual, handsome, uncommonly intelligent. I won't go as far as to say that you should share all that with me; not in this thread at least. But you can't be born to rule over or represent me and a million others. The world should have a say, no matter how small, in the choice of its representatives.


----------



## RedRag

I don't think that it is fair to consider the constitutional monarchies of today with the absolute monarchies of the past.

In the past a monarch had a divine right to be a dictator.

In the present a monarch has a birth right to be a figurehead.

So any atrocities linked to a despotic monarch have no bearing on this debate, whose current theme is the rights/wrongs of it today.





> Demeaning an institution one profoundly disagrees with does in no way mean one is demeaning ones country.The Queen is NOT the country.



If the figurehead of your football team was a mascot and you were opposed to it, and spat on it, to you you are spitting on a lifeless, inanimate and inapropriate object. To others you are spitting on the team. I don't think that the monarchy should be above criticism, but should be respected. Not because of what it is, but of what it represents to millions of others. Likewise with religon, I respect the religons because of what they mean to millions, although I don't believe in any of them. It's all a matter of approach. If your intent is to merely sully its image then I find it disrespectul to those who do 'believe'.



> The very concept of aristocracy is a disgrace. It collides frontally with everything that modern societies believe in: that we are all equal, that titles and privileges should be earned not inherited at birth, that we are all born with the same rights and should be allowed to compete for what we want to achieve. Monarchy, by contrast, stands for the privileges of a few, class divisions, unequal opportunities, and ultimately racism.



The aristocracy evolved out of the feudal system and is largely obselete. Generally, current aristocrats inherit nothing over the rest of the population except a title. If their family has land they inherit 60% of that. So does everyone else in the country. Although it seems obscene that they have so much wealth and can live like playboys, I doubt that there are many like this. Compared to the big business men, most these people have a few mere millions and a damp house that costs a fortune to run. Even if they believe that they are a cut above the rest, no one else does.

The importance of the title is minmal. What privileges do they have? They are born into a social and excusive network - you need a title and/or money. This is in reality no different to any of the other old-boy networks that are running. Besides these networks are dying out in business as people have to be more accountable.

As for royalty, which accounts for just one extended family, it does stand for the privileges of a few, class divisions and unequal opportunities. However I think that its an exception worth having, and a fair deal - they get a lifetime of privilege for a lifetime of responsibility. It is also effective - you get a liftime of training, ample preparation, a lack of messy campaigning and no motive for a quick fill-yer-boots 4-year term in office.

My support of the monarchy is based on pragmatism.




> (Compare that with a republic that rests on truly stable ancient institutions like the U.S., where extremists are free to trumpet their propaganda as much as they want, but nobody is interested in them.)


While the US remains profitable and stable then nobody wants to rock the boat. When the depression comes, and it will come eventually, people will start loooking for answers, and extremists will start exploiting the anger in the air.


----------



## beclija

On another note:





Athaulf said:


> And yet, just compare the ethnic and religious demographic map of Central and Eastern Europe under their rule with what exists today.


You probably mean places like the Bukovina (a relatively late acquisition) and the Military Frontier (under a special, more tolerant regime than the rest of the country). And even these fall far behind places like the Dobrudja, Macedonia, or Western Anatolia of the same time. Unless this proves that the Ottoman Empire was even more humane, I don't see the point.

And as for extremism not gaining much ground in the US: Search YouTube for "Jesus Camp" and tell me which European non-extremists would send their pre-teen children to camps where they chant "This is war" or "I am willing to die for <whatever is the high cause the movement has embraced>". I am not saying analogues don't exist in Europe, unfortunately they do, but it qualifies as extremism by my definition.


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> The basic idea on which I base my conclusions is that totalitarian ideologies are inherently radical and revolutionary, and that they can flourish only when traditional political  institutions disintegrate or lose the devotion and loyalty of the population.



So, basically, if I understand correctly, you are opposed to any change to traditional political institutions for fear that a totalitarian ideology would take over. Is that so? But what about slavery then? That was a truly ancient institution from ancient Egypt and before. I know you will say that slavery is not a political institution, but modern-day monarchies are not either.


----------



## don maico

LouisaB said:


> Are you _sure_ you mean George IV? Not George III? (Please do correct me and accept my apologies if I'm wrong - I just can't see why George IV when George III is so obvious a target).
> 
> )


I only mentioned him as an example . He was a very libidinous self indulgent character who had a string of mistresses and wasted millions on grand schemes in order to satisfy his vanity. If he had been a president there is no way he would have lasted a term. Unfortunately here in the UK we seem to think that such behaviour is more or less acceptable for a monarch but not those we elect. Esdward the Vll also boasted several mistresses.
George lll went mad towards the end of his reign when any power he may have had was neutralised.


----------



## don maico

RedRag said:


> If the figurehead of your football team was a mascot and you were opposed to it, and spat on it, to you you are spitting on a lifeless, inanimate and inapropriate object. To others you are spitting on the team. I don't think that the monarchy should be above criticism, but should be respected. Not because of what it is, but of what it represents to millions of others. Likewise with religon, I respect the religons because of what they mean to millions, although I don't believe in any of them. It's all a matter of approach. If your intent is to merely sully its image then I find it disrespectul to those who do 'believe'.
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy evolved out of the feudal system and is largely obselete. Generally, current aristocrats inherit nothing over the rest of the population except a title. If their family has land they inherit 60% of that. So does everyone else in the country. Although it seems obscene that they have so much wealth and can live like playboys, I doubt that there are many like this. Compared to the big business men, most these people have a few mere millions and a damp house that costs a fortune to run. Even if they believe that they are a cut above the rest, no one else does.
> 
> The importance of the title is minmal. What privileges do they have? They are born into a social and excusive network - you need a title and/or money. This is in reality no different to any of the other old-boy networks that are running. Besides these networks are dying out in business as people have to be more accountable.
> 
> As for royalty, which accounts for just one extended family, it does stand for the privileges of a few, class divisions and unequal opportunities. However I think that its an exception worth having, and a fair deal - they get a lifetime of privilege for a lifetime of responsibility. It is also effective - you get a liftime of training, ample preparation, a lack of messy campaigning and no motive for a quick fill-yer-boots 4-year term in office.
> 
> My support of the monarchy is based on pragmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> .



If a person vehently opposes the monarchic institution  then he is perfectly entitled to criticise it . This does  not mean he is demeaning his country, just that he refuses to acknowledge said institution and everything that goes with it. It means he will in no way ingratiate himself to a  monarch nor bow and scrape in his/her presence. He will refer to himself as a citizen and his loyalties are with the people of his country and not solely to the  Monarch who, after all, is just another individual.Those are the sentiments of a Republican patriot.


----------



## Athaulf

beclija said:


> I disbelieve that the situation as it was in 1918 (or in fact even before then) could have been helped by keeping them _[Habsburgs]_ in place. Nationalism, for good or bad, had taken roots long before and was only kept relatively silent by repression, most notably in 1848-9. Even if the monarchy had nominally stayed in place, major restructurings would have been neccessary, leading to probably much the same power vacuum and much the same wars of domination.
> I strongy agree that the price in blood was far to high. I don't see, though, how a retention of the monarchy could have prevented a similar outcome, if possibly with a delayal of 10 or 20 years.



Maybe you are right; Tito's regime similarly managed to forcibly suppress nationalism for decades, with the only result that it erupted a few years after his death, as bloody as ever. But in some multi-ethnic countries like Switzerland, nationalist passions and irredentist movements never woke up, and the old order has remained stable and prosperous to the present day. Without the disaster of the First World War, I think it's possible that the Monarchy could have survived in a similar way. After all, it didn't fall apart all until it was militarily defeated and starved for four years. As for how exactly that war broke out and who is guilty for starting it, I've given up any attempts to form my personal judgments about it. We'll probably never know what exactly was happening behind closed doors in that fatal summer of 1914.

Of course, all historical "what if" speculations are ultimately just idle fantasies, but I still hope you understand why I frown when I hear people claiming that the breakup of the Monarchy represented some sort of "liberation" or "progress" for any of its peoples.  Winston Churchill certainly had no particular reason to be fond of the Habsburgs, and yet in the first book of his _The Second World War_ he wrote, _"There is not one of the peoples or provinces that constituted the Empire of the Hapsburgs to whom gaining their independence has not brought the tortures which ancient poets and theologians had reserved for the damned."

_


> On another note:You probably mean places like the Bukovina (a relatively late acquisition) and the Military Frontier (under a special, more tolerant regime than the rest of the country). And even these fall far behind places like the Dobrudja, Macedonia, or Western Anatolia of the same time. Unless this proves that the Ottoman Empire was even more humane, I don't see the point.


I actually mean most of the places throughout the Habsburg Empire. There is not a single country in the former territory of the Empire that wasn't subjected to campaigns of extermination and/or forceful relocation of a significant part of its population during the three decades following its fall. While a lot of this dirty work was done by the Nazis and the Soviets, at the time it was universally (if tacitly) acknowledged that these steps were necessary to ensure the stability of the new nation-states after the experiences of the interbellum. 

Of course, a country being multi-ethnic is not something that would be admirable just by itself. However, the lands of the Central and Eastern Europe have always been highly multi-ethnic historically, unlike most of the Western Europe, where the ethnic and language boundaries have been much more clearly defined. In the 19th century, various nationalists and "progressives" of all colors started struggling to break the old empires, whose ideological basis was devoid of nationalism, into modern nation-states based on the French model, but they were fatally blind to the fact that in an Easter European setting, such a system would never become stable without forcible ethnic homogenization. (And some of them, including many of those who are nowadays celebrated as national heroes in their homelands, were in fact gleefully looking forward to such events, naively imagining that their ethnic group would somehow be spared the horrors.)



> And as for extremism not gaining much ground in the US: Search YouTube for "Jesus Camp" and tell me which European non-extremists would send their pre-teen children to camps where they chant "This is war" or "I am willing to die for <whatever is the high cause the movement has embraced>". I am not saying analogues don't exist in Europe, unfortunately they do, but it qualifies as extremism by my definition.


Well, this particular movie shows the most extreme fringe of the Pentecostals, and Pentecostals in general account for less than 2% of the U.S. population. The Demopublican-Republicrat mainstream of the American public opinion is very remote from such extremism. I really can't think of anything in the U.S. history that would be even remotely similar to the totalitarian and nationalist mass movements that swept Europe during the 20th century. But however interesting this particular issue might be, I'm afraid we're now getting off-topic with it.


----------



## RedRag

RedRag


> I don't think that the monarchy should be above criticism, but should be respected.


Don Maico


> If a person vehently opposes the monarchic institution then he is perfectly entitled to criticise it . This does not mean he is demeaning his country, just that he refuses to acknowledge said institution and everything that goes with it.


 
I refer you back to my above statement.


It is all in the way it's done. There were some funny jokes about the Spanish royals on TV yesterday. Of course they were mocking them, but it wasn't malicious. No harm done. My point is merely that regardless of your opinion of them, you should have enough respect for those that do hold them in some regard, not to show total disrespect for them. As with religon.


----------



## don maico

RedRag said:


> RedRag
> 
> My point is merely that regardless of your opinion of them, you should have enough respect for those that do hold them in some regard, not to show total disrespect for them. As with religon.



No more or less respect for them than the average person.More a case of showing respect then having it in my view. I dont disrespect the Queen as such but I find the likes of Philip and Charles very difficult to have any regard for given their past behaviour and som e of their utterences. I  dont think Monarchs are worthy of more respect than our PMs who do a real job making difficult decissions that affect peoples' lives in the sure knowledge they have limited time and a need to impress the electorate.


----------



## ernest_

RedRag said:


> My point is merely that regardless of your opinion of them, you should have enough respect for those that do hold them in some regard, not to show total disrespect for them.



Even if they have a strange tendency to get involved in all sort of charades? Few Spanish papers took a critical stance in regard to the drunken bear affair, making witty remarks. Both of them were sued.


----------



## _forumuser_

ernest_ said:


> Even if they have a strange tendency to get involved in all sort of charades? Few Spanish papers took a critical stance in regard to the drunken bear affair, making witty remarks. Both of them were sued.


 
No further questions!


----------



## RedRag

I think that sort of behaviour should be criticized.

I'm not against fair criticism, jokes, republican debate, only against malicious disrespect of the monarch - not because of the person in the role but because of what the role represents - even if you don't believe that that representation is justified.

I have nothing against criticism of Islam/Christianity, jokes about it or people who say that in their opinion its nonsense. I would have something against someone going into a mosque/church and shouting that its all nonsense - that's disrespectful of the congregation, even if I agree that their beliefs are false.


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: Because of the nature of the question the arguments and counter-arguments on the subject have been not moderated even if most of the times they represent one's personal opinions with no mention of cultural viewpoints at all. However, unless posts of a less personal nature are to be expected this thread will be closed.

I don't believe my personal beliefs on royalty will make any difference and this forum is not the place to present them 

I can however tell you that in Greece, the vast majority of the citizens are against royalty. This has to do with the history of royalty in Greece. The royal family of Greece wasn't historically Greek and Greeks didn't have a say on who their king was to be. In addition to this many of our few past kings'  actions were detrimental to Greece's and/or the Greek people's prosperity(I am referring to the Republic of Greece, to modern Greece if you wish). 
As far as I know we have no set opinion about the kings and queens and royal families of other nations in general. We don't want kings in Greece and we prefer (again, as far as I know) to let the other nations decide for themselves .


----------



## Poetic Device

This is how I look at it:  Why are the royals at least somewhat considered better than the civilians?  They're made of the same stuff and some of them may not have as much of an intelligence level.  It's just a matter of being lucky enough to have been born into that family.


----------



## Fernando

MY parents are better TO ME. I respect them. I do not obey whatever they say that is contrary to MY opinion.

MY brothers are better to ME. I respect them. I do not obey whatever they say that is contrary to MY opinion.

My parents/grandparents/brothers can be stupid (at one particular time or on a permanent basis). I do not stop respecting them for that reason.

Compared with family relations, unfairness of monarchy is a joke.

I, of course, understand countries without kings (and I would not adopt a king if I were in a republic) but you must understand countries with a king.

Monarchists do not believe kings are better. We decide they are "better" for representative purposes because we could not stand a commoner mate as superior (as a president of the Republic).


----------



## BlackDragon

What is paramount in the situation of Royalty is to remember that royalty itself is nothing without the so called 'commoners' in that region (everyone is individual and unique). Without them there is nothing.


----------



## beclija

> We decide they are "better" for representative purposes because we could not stand a commoner mate as superior


If you find it OK to have someone of the nobility as your superior, but not a commoner, than obviously you believe that a noble is inherently better. Why else would you accept a Juan Carlos if you don't accept the smart guy next door? This may be a personal opinion, but it is shared by a lot, probably the vast majority, of people around here, and implicitly or explicitly encouraged by our constitution.   

To the moderators: Yes, we did definitely stroll off topic discussing extremism in the US, but that has never been the main topic of the argument between me and Athaulf. Instead, we discussed more than anything else the merits and flaws of the one monarchy that encompassed both our countries until some 90 years ago.


----------



## Fernando

beclija said:


> If you find it OK to have someone of the nobility as your superior, but not a commoner, than obviously you believe that a noble is inherently better. Why else would you accept a Juan Carlos if you don't accept the smart guy next door? This may be a personal opinion, but it is shared by a lot, probably the vast majority, of people around here, and implicitly or explicitly encouraged by our constitution.



Since 16th century people accept the principle that "Del rey abajo, ninguno": I mean, the "nobility" is no more a source of privilege. That principle was installed by the revolutions of 18th and 19th century but it was popular wisdom far before.

So, we have only commoners and the king. Nobles are far below the kings and their importance is null. In any constitutional monarchy have the nobles some importance.

I do not accept the guy next door (no matter his intelligence) because I do not accept him to rule over me (for 4 years maximum) nor to represent me (for no time). I accept (because he accepts) the heir of a well-known family, committed with Spain for (at least 300 years), to represent me. That is what I think the Spanish Constitution implies.


----------



## beclija

As far as I can see, that only changes the issue from "nobility vs. commoners" to "high nobility vs. low nobility and commoners".

And, once more, if you don't accept the guy next door to rule over you or to even represent you, that's an opinion I'm sympathetic to. But that is bordering to anarchism rather than being the basic idea of democracy - what democracy states (to me as a citizen of a republic) is that the guy next door is the one who should do the job if he is the one (considered by popular opinion to be) most apt to do it. Even if I find the recent outcome of "popular opinion" in your neighbouring country most disturbing.


----------



## Fernando

It changes from "whatever nobility vs. commoners" to "king vs. commoners".

The (modern) democracy accept some men should rule on others because they have been elected by the "ruled" men. Given that the people is far from being one only entity with one will, it is noticed that the ruler is not elected by "the people", but by a majority of the people. So, every 4 years, the defeated minority has another opportunity to take the power.

The qualities of the ruler has little to do (though it is assummed that the majority of the people will not elect a dumb as his ruler). Theoretically, he could elect a Down-syndrom affected as his ruler.

You can (or not) split the representation from the rule. Many people in some countries would not accept that the representation should be given to a person who is oppossed by the 47% of population (Mr. Sarkozy), while they could accept that that same person rule over them FOR A TIME, because someone has to rule.

These peoples (UK, Spain, Norway, Lesotho) rather agree that OTHER person, who has (or should not have) particular interests other than the nation's, should have the REPRESENTATION of the nation as a whole. To avoid quarrels over that particular person, they prefer the person according to rules well-stablished centuries ago (the first son -daughter- of the late king). Maybe is an stupid, but, at least, we should not argue on who is he.


----------



## _forumuser_

Fernando said:


> we could not stand a commoner mate as superior (as a president of the Republic).



For people like myself who do not believe there should be aristocrats or royals in this world just being called a "commoner" is an insult. Please avoid if you can.


----------



## Sepia

_forumuser_ said:


> For people like myself who do not believe there should be aristocrats or royals in this world just being called a "commoner" is an insult. Please avoid if you can.



I fully aggree with you!!!

I think that monarchy is totally out of place in a modern democracy. I merely respect the monarchs of modern democratcies for their representative position as the equivalent of our (German) Bundespräsident. 

Some of them also do a good job in this respect - and some have even been able to use their popularity and the confidence people had in them maintain peace and boost the development of democracy. (Juan Carlos of Spain at the end of the Fraco dictatorship and Christian X of Denmark during WWII just to mention the only two I really paid attention to)

And others really do a lousy job and one wonders why the people in their countries don't fire them. They could if they wanted to - no democratic constitution is unchangable if enough people want it changed.


----------



## Fernando

Sepia said:


> And others really do a lousy job and one wonders why the people in their countries don't fire them.



And hire Zapatero as King / President?? No, thank you.



Sepia said:


> They could if they wanted to - no democratic constitution is unchangable IF enough people want it changed.



Notice the capitalization.


----------



## Fernando

_forumuser_ said:


> For people like myself who do not believe there should be aristocrats or royals in this world just being called a "commoner" is an insult. Please avoid if you can.



Call it "non-king" if you want, though I do not see the insult (I saw it in the "guillotine" references):

1  commoner, common man, common person

   a person who holds no title  


Fernando, the proud commoner.


----------

