Monarchy? Good or Bad??

[Vrylakas]

Back in 1990 or so there was a worldwide Monarchists conference in the old royal Polish capital, Kraków, and they went on blah blahing about how great it would be if everyone had a Charles & Diana. (I wonder what they think now?) Anyway, much to my surprise I ran into a small American contingent - and my first reaction was to burst out laughing. It just seemed so funny and ridiculous, I couldn't stop laughing.

They were put off for some reason and they left before I could ask them if they'd ever read anything by Thomas Jefferson...

On another occasion I was visiting a synagogue in Szeged (southeastern Hungary) when suddenly a bunch of Catholic priests came in, followed by news cameras and finally Otto von Habsburg. As I was the only one in the Synagogue at the time he came over and shook my hand (I wonder if he thought I was Jewish?) and his hand was cold, clammy, sweaty, almost slimey-feeling. That impression stuck. I'm not one of those who is awed by the Habsburgs nor do I have any nostalgic feelings for them, and this little incident seemed appropriate. Blech!

In short, I have no problem with modern constitutional monarchies who are de facto functioning democracies (Sweden, Netherlands, Japan, etc.) but in the final analysis I'm for republics all the way!

 

[EdwardTking]

Monarchy is splendid providing people remember two rules:

(1) All the real decisions must be made by the people and their elected representatives.

We forgot this once and allied ourselves with the Germans once because our king had german relatives.


(2) If the monarch forgets (1); you depose that monarch.

This has worked well in Britain since we beheaded Charles 1.

We had to boot King James out because he wanted to make us roman catholic, and marry King Edward off to an American broad because he kept getting drunk and not showing up for work.

All our other monarchs since then have been absolutely splendid.

 

[philippe]

a king is a symbol for a country
in belguim(my country)
we live in a monarchy with limitations all that the knig must do is shaking hands and signing laws and if the king doesnt want to sign we say he was impotent and he is for a day not a knig so that the law can go on
muahahahahaah
but it is a important symbol for a country
and it is actually cheater than a president because when a president is retired they get their pension(pensieon in dutch dont know word in elglish)and if you must pay that of ( presidents its better to have a king

 

[Lord_Vetinari]

If one are to argue against monarchy on the opinion that it costs too much of tax payers' money, then remember this:

Paparrazzi photographers also pays tax, and many of them (most of them I believe) would loose their jobs if we were to abolish monarchy. The same goes for all the people involved in making a tabloid magazine (if we were to abolish monarchy in Sweden, most of our beloved tabloids would be facing bankrupcy within weeks)

There is also a sales tax on tabloids, which generates $$$

If you add all this up, I think you will see that monarchy does not cost very much at all.

Nuff said!

 

[MrPresident]

If one are to argue against monarchy on the opinion that it costs too much of tax payers' money, then remember this:

I never would agree against the monarchy on the grounds that it costs too much because the facts is that it doesn't. However it is pretty hard to agree against slavery on economic grounds too but I think we all agree that is wrong, well except maybe Simon Darkshade. However having said that the monarchy are one of the richest landowners in Britain, if part of their land were made public then think about the income. I mean how much more would Buckingham Palace rack in if it was made into a tourist attraction?
Anyway, the agreement is not about money. I don't see how you can possibly call your country a democracy when your head of state (the most important position, even if it has no real power) is unelected.

We forgot this once and allied ourselves with the Germans once because our king had german relatives.

Forget about German relatives, several of our Kings have been German and spoke little English.

MrP, does that mean that you have no problems with a Fascist Dictatorship since your child might grow up to be the trusted advisor of the Ruler and then become Fascist Dictator II when the Ruler he advises dies?

Thats is not the only advantage of a Fascist dictatorship . Like me ask you what is the difference between a monarchy (not a constitutional one but a proper monarchy) and a Fascist dictatorship? The only one I can think of is that the Fascist leader had to earn their place at the top.

 

[Sixchan]

Yeah, just wanted to clear that up. You answered sensibly, and as such are less likely to get a late-night visit from Simon's psychiatrists.

 

[Ozz]

What is the differience between a senior civil servant and a
Modern Monarch?, The civil servant has more power. I like the
idea someone watching the government, who has the public
ear, is really difficult to get rid of, and if it is important can blow the whistle (the politicians will want to get rid of the monarch each time they do this).

Perhaps someone from Austrailia could comment, Did the
Queen interfer with your P.M. sometime ago?. Do you think
the monarchy will survive downunder?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Ozz
Perhaps someone from Austrailia could comment, Did the
Queen interfer with your P.M. sometime ago?. Do you think
the monarchy will survive downunder?

No, that was the Governor General, who got drunk, and sacked the Prime Minister and the government.
Nothing to do with Her Most Gracious and Glorious Majesty.
The monarchy will survive and thrive here. God Save the Queen!

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
No, that was the Governor General, who got drunk, and sacked the Prime Minister and the government.
Nothing to do with Her Most Gracious and Glorious Majesty.

Simon, whilst Kerr (the then Governor General) made the decision to sack Gough Whitlam (the then Prime Minister ) he was required to discuss the matter with the Queen. If my memory of history and the Constitution doesn't fail me this was part of the convention that falls within the "reserve powers" of the Governor General. This most certainly does mean it had something to do with the Australian Head of State - Queen Elizabeth II.

For those who are not familiar with this piece of Australian history the situation was (1975), in brief, as follows:

- the Opposition parties blocked supply (monetary funding for the running of Government) - they had a majority in the Senate

- the Government refused to call an election (there was still at least one and a half years before their term of office was up)

- the Governor General was approached by the then Leader of the Opposition (Malcolm Fraser) to sack the current Government and install him and his party as a minority (in the House of Reps) Caretaker Government whilst an election was called

- the Governor General did just that and Fraser won the subsequent election in a landslide

- the GG's sacking of the Whitlam Government apart from creating the greatest political crisis in Australia's history called in to question the very Constitutional structure of the Nation, including the role and powers of our Head of State and her representative in Australia

- specifically what are called "reserve powers" which are not spelt out in any detail but rely on convention and precedent

The monarchy will survive and thrive here. God Save the Queen!

You are of course entitled to your opinion, however those outside Australia should be aware that there is a very strong Republican movement here that continues to push for the abolition of the Monarchy as Australia's Head of State.

Admittedly we (yes, I am an avowed republican - as if that wasn't obvious - although not a member of ARM) suffered a set back when the referendum to amend the constitution (and therefore change the Head of State) was defeated.

The reasons for the defeat were primarily because those pursuing a Republic were split between those that wanted a directly elected President and those who wanted a President selected by Parliament .

Those pursuing a directly elected President sided with the Monarchists to defeat the referendum - this result was NOT an endorsement of the Monarchy. In fact the Monarchists went to great lengths during the campaign to avoid the issue of having a British aristocrat as Australia's Head of State, prefering instead to run the line that the Governor General is Australia's Head of State as part of a general campaign of disinformation and dishonesty.

The current Federal Opposition, the Australia Labor Party has stated that they will hold another referendum on the issue if they are elected - this issue will not go away.

I am confident that another referendum will succeed IF the Republican movements can develop a unified position - the Monarchy in Australia is on borrowed time.

 

[MrPresident]

a member of ARM

I know what the letters mean but could you lot have come up with something slightly less silly, I mean how are you meant to be taken seriously. I suggest AFTER or RAM.

What is the difference between a senior civil servant and a Modern Monarch?

How about a civil servant doesn't make any decisions but a monarch does. How about a monarch signs laws and a civil servant doesn't. How about a monarch decides who is government in a hung parliament and a civil servant doesn't. How about a monarch is that country's representative in the international community and a civil servant isn't. Do I need to go on?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Admittedly we (yes, I am an avowed republican - as if that wasn't obvious - although not a member of ARM) suffered a set back when the referendum to amend the constitution (and therefore change the Head of State) was defeated."

CONFESSION!!! CONFESSION OF TREASON!!!!

"The reasons for the defeat were primarily because those pursuing a Republic were split between those that wanted a directly elected President and those who wanted a President selected by Parliament .
Those pursuing a directly elected President sided with the Monarchists to defeat the referendum - this result was NOT an endorsement of the Monarchy. In fact the Monarchists went to great lengths during the campaign to avoid the issue of having a British aristocrat as Australia's Head of State, prefering instead to run the line that the Governor General is Australia's Head of State as part of a general campaign of disinformation and dishonesty."

This does make it look as if actual pro-monarchy support was not in existence. The split in the republicans was a factor, but there were many, many people who voted to retain the monarchy .

"The current Federal Opposition, the Australia Labor Party has stated that they will hold another referendum on the issue if they are elected - this issue will not go away."

If and when they get elected. No time soon, and Crean does not impress me, nor the publi.c

"I am confident that another referendum will succeed IF the Republican movements can develop a unified position - the Monarchy in Australia is on borrowed time."

What makes you think you vill get another referendum, mein kamarad?
Ve have vays of getting around zuch zings.
In seriousness, that position depends upon everything else being fairly static, and simply standing by in acceptance...

 

[duke o' york]

Mr President, are you trying to suggest that a Monarch has no obligation to serve the public whatsoever? Surely you recall "noblesse oblige"? If a ruler neglects the needs of the people then they would last about as long as the ideal socialist state would. You can have a huge army to defend the throne but if you've managed to cheese off your soldiers too then you're going to be a bit stuck.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by MrPresident
How about a civil servant doesn't make any decisions but a monarch does. How about a monarch signs laws and a civil servant doesn't. How about a monarch decides who is government in a hung parliament and a civil servant doesn't. How about a monarch is that country's representative in the international community and a civil servant isn't. Do I need to go on?

You could go on forever, but it does not change the fact that Sir Humphrey Appleby has more power than Her Majesty could ever aspire to.

 

[duke o' york]

How about a civil servant doesn't make any decisions but a monarch does.

What decisions does a monarch make exactly? What hat to wear and whether to have the red or the white with lunch?

How about a monarch signs laws and a civil servant doesn't.

How about a civil servant drafts laws and a monarch doesn't? If the Queen was required to understand everything she signs then it would take about 5 years to enact the laws Parliament agreed in one. She has people who tell her what to sign and what not to sign.

How about a monarch decides who is government in a hung parliament and a civil servant doesn't.

Yeah, because a monarch has a perfect understanding of the political nuances of this decision and won't rely on what someone says. Or even worse, makes a decision based on personal prejudice and superficial factors.

How about a monarch is that country's representative in the international community and a civil servant isn't.

Have you ever heard of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or do you just not understand what they do?

Do I need to go on?

Of course not, but please do as this is rather amusing.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

CONFESSION!!! CONFESSION OF TREASON!!!!

Yes, I confess treason against HRH QE2 , in fact I live in a State of traitors - Victoria had the higest support for the republic - viva la republic!

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
This does make it look as if actual pro-monarchy support was not in existence. The split in the republicans was a factor, but there were many, many people who voted to retain the monarchy .

I don't disagree that there was some support for the monarchy, but the polls both before and after suggested that actual support for the monarchy as compared to those who supported a republic of either model was fairly low.

We've discussed this in another thread and I promised to get hold of some polling data - I'll keep looking.

Originally posted by andycapp
"The current Federal Opposition, the Australia Labor Party has stated that they will hold another referendum on the issue if they are elected - this issue will not go away."

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

If and when they get elected. No time soon, and Crean does not impress me, nor the publi.c

A week can be a long time in politics Simon (not to mention 3 more years). The current Government was considered "mean and tricky" before the last election - my impression is that the electorate views them as meaner and tricker the longer they go on - time will tell whether Simon Crean will cut the mustard with the Australian electorate.

The fact is that when the ALP does win government there will be a referendum on the issue.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

In seriousness, that position depends upon everything else being fairly static, and simply standing by in acceptance...

Not sure what you mean here Simon. I think time is against the monarchists for three reasons:

1. the overwhelming majority of those that support the monarchy are from the older generations and they (no malice intended) are a dying breed

2. the percentage of Australians from a non-anglo background will only increase and this demographic is far more likely to support the republic

3. bonnie Prince Charlie is next in line and I think it is realistic to expect that many who hold the current Queen in high esteem will not extend that sentiment to her son.

Viva la republic!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Yes, I confess treason against HRH QE2 , in fact I live in a State of traitors - Victoria had the higest support for the republic - viva la republic! "

All of this is being recorded as evidence for your trial.


"I don't disagree that there was some support for the monarchy, but the polls both before and after suggested that actual support for the monarchy as compared to those who supported a republic of either model was fairly low.

We've discussed this in another thread and I promised to get hold of some polling data - I'll keep looking. "

We both know about the accuracy of polls. The only polls I trust these days are the ones used for impaling by Uncle Vlad.



"A week can be a long time in politics Simon (not to mention 3 more years). The current Government was considered "mean and tricky" before the last election - my impression is that the electorate views them as meaner and tricker the longer they go on - time will tell whether Simon Crean will cut the mustard with the Australian electorate.
The fact is that when the ALP does win government there will be a referendum on the issue."

I do know about the rapidly changing nature of politics, but Crean is not electable now, and there is little to no alternative to him. Jenny Macklin? . The ALP has a long time in the wilderness ahead of it, and any number of things could happen to its platform in that time.
This is coming from a jaded member of the ALP Fascist Right.



"Not sure what you mean here Simon. I think time is against the monarchists for three reasons:

1. the overwhelming majority of those that support the monarchy are from the older generations and they (no malice intended) are a dying breed

2. the percentage of Australians from a non-anglo background will only increase and this demographic is far more likely to support the republic

3. bonnie Prince Charlie is next in line and I think it is realistic to expect that many who hold the current Queen in high esteem will not extend that sentiment to her son."

Again, you assume that the monarchist side will remain static, and just kindly lie there and let you kill it. As to the points
1.) I know plenty of young monarchists, and also many people to whom the republic is a non-issue with no impact upon their lives.
2.) That is not necessarily a given fact in either part of the statement.
3.) HRH the Prince of Wales has changed his public profile, and the way he is viewed in the last few years. Time will tell.


Now, it's getting quite late at night, and old men like you should be in bed at this hour...

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Now, it's getting quite late at night, and old men like you should be in bed at this hour...

Show a bit of respect junior!

Yes, I am feeling old(er) and grumpy(er) - best get some shut eye.

Good night!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Now we let him sleep for a few hours before a crack team of plain clothes psychiatrists break down his door and haul him away for his trial as a republican.

 

[Sixchan]

Heh, don't forget the stormtroopers.

And I'm currently using some of the psychiatrists to 'interrogate' the Commies in the other thread, so don't worry about them.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


No, that was the Governor General, who got drunk, and sacked the Prime Minister and the government.
Nothing to do with Her Most Gracious and Glorious Majesty.
The monarchy will survive and thrive here. God Save the Queen!

Who was that?, We can make an opening for them in Canada
if your done with them. The G.G. is the Queen's representive,
you would have had a sober wimpy president (Republic) without the grace of Her Imperial Majesty.