Probably been done a number of times, but I'm curious to see people's thoughts on this.
Remaining monarchies have become constitutional monarchies, where the monarch acts more as a head of state with ceremonial powers (though in some countries they are granted more powers as a check over their cabinets), with a few hold outs of absolute monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Swaziland.
As most of us would probably be more directly affected by constitutional monarchies, my question is what is your stance on monarchies? Are you a republican who wants an elected head of state, or do you favor monarchies? Hell, I'd might as well throw in an option for those of you who opt for an absolute monarchy.
They're relics. Off with their heads!
It's sad how modern day monarchs and their families are now locked into position with no threat of ever being removed, they are like leeches, they are worst then any person living off the government.
i live in the UK, which is the textbook example of a constitutional monarchy, and in reality, the monarch has no power whatsoever. theoretically, the queen could refuse to sign a bill, but this would likely bring about the end of the monarchy for reasons of democracy, so it's not going to happen. all power in the UK is in the hands of the house of commons- the unelected elements (monarchy, house of lords) don't wield massive amounts of power and are heavily restricted for reasons of democracy. i personally wouldn't care one way or another if the UK became a republic or not, as it wouldn't change anything- most likely, the title of head of state would be put on to the prime minister and little would change.
Monarchies ? Back in the days of old Sparta, when the king was elected for qualities and not for position, family or "zealotness", then yes.
Todays monarchies ? Hell no. These people live in mansions, villa's, buy another villa at the coast of X land. While in their own country, (especially countries like Saudi Arabia), their people are getting sucked dry. Where the fuck is the equality in this ?
I'm personally against every form of government, but if I had to choose, I'd prefer anarcho-communism. Everyone equal, everyone really free and everyone shares. If one guy loses an arm, everybody should feel the same and jump in for him. Nowadays, we see shit.
So, the rich people (those who have gained an heritage, not people who've busted their asses of to become rich) should be robbed of all their money (especially when they're arrogant. Want an example? Everyone who participates at golfing), and should share the money with poor families. YES I'M A COMMUNIST AND I'M FUCKING HAPPAAAAAAY !!!.
So, kings aged above 55 years should dethrone. Neither should someone of his family be allowed to be the next king. Hell no.
Man, I wish we could go back to the times when someone "couragous" was someone who had golden balls to charge into a phalanx with sticks. Hell yeah, forget bullets and forge swords, let's see who has the best army then.
And the kings should be elected through natural selection, followed by brains, followed by condition and ability to fight. Now THAT'S a king.
I think my political inclinations are clear enough to say what I would have instead of a monarchy. I was curious to gauge people's thoughts on them however.
I really doubt anyone here lives in an absolute monarchy, so it's more of a question of what you think about constitutional monarchies.
I don't mind them, they serve their purpose as heads of state just like the Presidents of Germany and Israel who also have relatively titular position beyond being representatives of their country as well as those who also wield power as the head of government. I wouldn't push for one in this country, but then I wouldn't really push to remove one either.
Monarchies are not something I'd consider to be healthy for any person. The reason why I bring this up is that people become fearful of doing something wrong and live on a finer line than people in more democratic nations. Now the sound of a constitutional monarchy isn't that bad sounding, however they're ridiculous. Having someone be the ceremonial leader of a government sounds like a dud. They don't really have any purpose so without them, the resources and attention would be focused on more important things like jobs or decisions on certain bills. So I'm pretty much against any form of monarchy.
Now that some of you bring it up, communism has been unfortunately tainted by people who become power hungry. If there was a way to prevent such a thing from happening, then I'd be fine with it. A form of Social Democracy maybe the way to go, but it's tough since people attribute anything with the word "social" with communism or socialism.
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
We have a double Head of State as a constitutional monarchy.
The Queen of the Realm of New Zealand, Elizabeth II, lives in the UK, but it officially the head of state. The Governor-General lives in New Zealand, and is officially the representative of the Queen.
The Governor-General freely accepts that he has no power; the Governor-General reigns but Parliament rules. The Governor-General is officially appointed by the Queen, on the "suggestion" of Parliament.
Our Governor-Generals are non-interventionist (with exceptions Canada 2008-, or Australia 1975), as is the Monarchy, but this is by convention, not law.
I'm republican, and the republican movement here is growing steadily. There is a feeling of inevitability about becoming a republic, but the main parties don't want to do anything about it. Of the parties in Parliament; two are staunchly pro-republic, two are mildly pro-republic, two are pro-monarchy, and one doesn't want to change the status quo but is also not pro- or anti-republic.
There's also a lack of drive to create a republic - obviously there are debates about what role the republican head of state should have - but also there's an overwhelming feeling of if it ain't broken, don't fix it. There is a growing feeling though that Elizabeth II will be the last monarch - her popularity has kept the monarchy alive much more than anything else.
Raptor_101;5395703Now the sound of a constitutional monarchy isn't that bad sounding, however they're ridiculous. Having someone be the ceremonial leader of a government sounds like a dud. They don't really have any purpose so without them, the resources and attention would be focused on more important things like jobs or decisions on certain bills. So I'm pretty much against any form of monarchy.
The role of the monarchy in a modern world (i.e. the constitutional monarchy) is indeed ceremonial and you can indeed argue that those duties can be handled by the elected leaders of a country. However, you're forgetting one important thing. A president or prime minister is elected on a political platform and they are the focal point for a certain political agenda. What this means is that a political leader inherently represents a particular ideological view. Thus whenever the leader appears at a gathering it becomes a political event, even though it might not be intended as such. Consequently, you can't avoid having a 'democratic' president meeting with the 'conservative' prime minister - even if it isn't necessarily supposed to be a political event. It's different with a regent as a monarchy is (or at the very least is supposed to be) an apolitical organisation. This means that they can avoid the political connection otherwise attached to a political representative.
Yes, we can discuss they outrageous spendings, their somewhat 'aloof' demeanour, and excessive lifestyle. However, you are very wrong when you say they don't server any purpose.
I live in one of the oldest monarchies in the world and I wouldn't want to see it go. It is just as much part of a national history and identity as the language, the flag, or the 'democratic tradition'.