Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:22 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,351

Is it good or bad to have a monarchy?


In centuries past monarchs could be good or bad and usually the secession meant wars and such.

But today, I have to say I admire the British monarchy. What CAN be good about a monarchy is they are not elected but basically serve for life. This means they dont need to run for elections and cannot be bought by special interests. Also they can think VERY long term - not just to the next election cycle.

Now yes, I know the British Queen has no REAL power but I feel they can set the tone and give input on government policies. Prince Charles has done a good job as a government representative. The recent royal wedding of (Andrew??? I think) was watched by the whole world. Words like King, Queen, Prince, and Princess still command strong respect and this also goes for monarchy in countries like Japan, Denmark, Spain, and Jordan.

Now the negative is monarchies are expensive and often they dont pay taxes or share their wealth with the common people.

What do you all think?
  #2  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:44 AM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,371
As a Brit, I find the Monarch jolly useful.
The Queen can, for example, act as the respected host for foreign visits, without any political views. She can make suitable speeches on important occasions.
When talks on trade etc. are needed, we have the Prime Minister.

By contrast America (a pleasant country) is currently represented by a lying, bigoted, misogynistic, nepotisic bully.

P.S. Personally I think Charles has not done a good job, but there you are.
  #3  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:50 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
The recent royal wedding of (Andrew??? I think) was watched by the whole world.
The recent wedding was Harry.

My view on the monarchy, as a Brit, is that whilst I wouldn't choose it were I to set up a new country, ours works very well for us, and if anyone wants to replace it they would need to come up with something significantly better. Trump is pretty good proof that a Presidency is not necessarily better, or for that matter cheaper - expecially when you add in the costs of all the elections.

Basically, we have a group of career diplomats, trained from birth, with no political ties or public political leanings. That's a very useful thing, and one that is hard to replicate by another method. Which is not to say it will always work, and I suspect that next time we have a Monarch who is not particularly fit for the job that will be the end of the Monarchy. Had Charles become King 20 years ago, that might have been him, but I doubt it will be now, and William looks like he will be an excellent King.
  #4  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:36 PM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,335
It's good if it can be made to work within a broadly-agreed system of governance and civic culture, but bad if there isn't one and the monarchy is identified with one or other of the contending approaches.

So far, the relatively few committed republicans in Britain don't (AFAIK) propose any alternative to the "Crown in Parliament" concept, simply that the head of state shouldn't be a hereditary job. (Though one of the subterranean features of the Brexit deadlock is a rumble of opposition to the authority and sovereignty of Parliament, which may yet become significant, if it ever becomes a focussed and thought-through campaign).
  #5  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
The recent wedding was Harry.

My view on the monarchy, as a Brit, is that whilst I wouldn't choose it were I to set up a new country, ours works very well for us, and if anyone wants to replace it they would need to come up with something significantly better. Trump is pretty good proof that a Presidency is not necessarily better, or for that matter cheaper - expecially when you add in the costs of all the elections.
.....
Well, the Queen does not take the place of a President, much. A Presidency is better than a Prime Minister. And your likely next PM,Boris Johnson,
is somewhat Trumplike, afaik.

However, the Royals can do a lot of the silly, time wasting things the President is called upon to do, ceremonies, ribbon cutting on the like. That's quite useful.
  #6  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:30 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
However, the Royals can do a lot of the silly, time wasting things the President is called upon to do, ceremonies, ribbon cutting on the like. That's quite useful.
It really is. I've been involved in a few local things that have had ceremonial visits and this is how the hierarchy goes: A Royal (around here it's almost always Princess Anne) >>>>the current local Lord Provost or Lord Lieutenant >>the local MP, MSP whatever.

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 06-08-2019 at 03:31 PM.
  #7  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:55 PM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, the Queen does not take the place of a President, much.
Not an executive President, no, but a ceremonial one, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A Presidency is better than a Prime Minister.
Because?
  #8  
Old 06-08-2019, 04:59 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,389
You can have much of the same benefits with a political structure that includes a president who is only head of state.

To the extent that monarchy correlates with long term stability I think that's all it is, a correlation. A less stable country has a high risk of a revolution, or at least change of system of government, so what you have is a situation where the most stable countries have kept their original form of government, where the less stable ones have had a revolution. (Very simplified of course.)

Is it good or bad to have a monarchy? That depends on how you define "good".
  #9  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:01 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,849
In civilization 2 you get one extra food unit per square when you irrigate under monarchy. Due to that I tend to switch to monarchy as fast as I can.

In real life the main problems with a monarchy is that they are not appointed by a meritocracy. Granted that doesn't happen in democracy either (Bill Clinton's wife ran against the son of a millionaire real estate developer in 2016. In 2012 the son of a successful CEO and governor ran against Obama who actually was self made. Bush Jr, McCain and Gore jr were scions of wealth and influence, etc).

But my point is that the child of a monarch probably isn't competent to run things. But again in the US we keep picking the children and spouses of wealthy influential people to run things so what do we know.

And most importantly, in game theory people have to do whatever the people who have something they want want them to do to stay in power. People like power, and you stay in power by keeping the people who keep you in power happy.

In a democracy that means winning 51% of the vote which you do via public works and solving their problems with the power of the state (or brainwashing the public to hate/fear the other side). In a monarchy you stay in power by making sure the military and secret police are heavily bribed. Whether the public are happy or miserable means nothing as long as the secret police and military are effective.

Theres just no incentive for the leaders in a monarchy to care about the well being of their citizens, anymore than there is incentive for an American politican to care about the well being of people in Kenya. If the US & Kenya became one nation, and the 50 million Kenyans suddenly became voting citizens of the US, then US politicians would start caring deeply and quickly about what the people of Kenya want because now they'd have something to gain or lose by keeping the Kenyans happy.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-08-2019 at 05:05 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:10 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
However, the Royals can do a lot of the silly, time wasting things the President is called upon to do, ceremonies, ribbon cutting on the like. That's quite useful.
That's what the Vice President is for. And the First Lady/Gentleman.
  #11  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:25 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
In civilization 2 you get one extra food unit per square when you irrigate under monarchy. Due to that I tend to switch to monarchy as fast as I can.
What are you switching from at that time though?
  #12  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:28 PM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... my point is that the child of a monarch probably isn't competent to run things. But again in the US we keep picking the children and spouses of wealthy influential people to run things so what do we know.
But our UK Monarchy (children included) doesn't run anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
In a monarchy you stay in power by making sure the military and secret police are heavily bribed. Whether the public are happy or miserable means nothing as long as the secret police and military are effective.
Which country are you thinking of?
Here in the UK, the Monarchy has no say in the military budget.
Do you think we've got a secret police?
Could you let me know what they are called? And how does the Queen finance them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Theres just no incentive for the leaders in a monarchy to care about the well being of their citizens, anymore than there is incentive for an American politican to care about the well being of people in Kenya.
Funny how the Queen is so popular here.
Opinion polls have regularly shown that Queen Elizabeth II has an excellent approval rating; coinciding with her Diamond Jubilee, the Queen had an approval rate in the United Kingdom of 90% in 2012...

Meanwhile in the US (a non-Monarchy), it's obvious that Trump doesn't care about anyone but his minority base.
  #13  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:28 PM
Darth_Hamsandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 591
One of my professors opined (this was a long time ago, so I'm paraphrasing) that there are two main benefits of a true monarchy. The first being that changes made to the governing laws are relatively swift when compared to a democracy, for example, because with the latter there are so many people that have to agree on something being changed to begin with.

The second benefit is that the buck generally stops with the monarch, as far as governing policy goes anyway. This is not necessarily true of other forms of government where sometimes it is difficult to trace the origin of a societies ills back through some bureaucratic office or department.
__________________
"You appear to be the product of some bizarre human and used douche mating experiment." ~ Zeriel
  #14  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:33 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,876
The question is one of providing continuing, long term good governance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A Presidency is better than a Prime Minister.
Not any presidency. The US style Presidency is the most prone to disfunction and tyranny. You wouldn’t accept it’s failure rate in a new car. Other formats are good equivalents of a constitutional monarchies. A couple are marginally better. CMs remain the standard republican models seek to emulate.

Quote:
However, the Royals can do a lot of the silly, time wasting things the President is called upon to do, ceremonies, ribbon cutting on the like. That's quite useful.
True. And every now and then, maybe once in a generation, they provide the independent tie-breaker.
  #15  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
That's what the Vice President is for. And the First Lady/Gentleman.

That's true, but then people think you sent your second best, you dont really care.

But when the Queen shows up, everyone goes "Wow! they really care!"

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-08-2019 at 05:40 PM.
  #16  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:41 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Hamsandwich View Post
The second benefit is that the buck generally stops with the monarch, as far as governing policy goes anyway.
Some body has totally, profoundly, fundamentally misunderstood the point and function of a constitutional monarchy.
  #17  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
But our UK Monarchy (children included) doesn't run anything.



Which country are you thinking of?
Here in the UK, the Monarchy has no say in the military budget.
Do you think we've got a secret police?
Could you let me know what they are called? And how does the Queen finance them?



.
The UK is not a Monarchy. Yes, you have a Monarch, but the UK is a parliamentary democracy, with no actual day to day power invested in the Queen.
  #18  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:08 PM
Darth_Hamsandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Some body has totally, profoundly, fundamentally misunderstood the point and function of a constitutional monarchy.
I'm guessing he was using an absolute monarchy as his reference point. I never questioned his points when applied to a constitutional monarchy.
__________________
"You appear to be the product of some bizarre human and used douche mating experiment." ~ Zeriel
  #19  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:37 PM
Dropo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 558
Fuck monarchies! Fuck kings, queens, princes, princess and the rest and I don't care how popular they are. Fuck the whole concept of royalty! No one is made more special than everyone else just by being born. No one has the right to inherit government power without any say from the people being governed.

I appreciate that (for instance) Brit royalty has no formal political power and acts as a source of domestic and international revenue and perhaps national pride, but fuck those royal bipeds, their (gov’t-financed) lifestyles and the attention they receive in the media just because they were born into a family that used to rule/exploit an empire and whose global legacy is in large part a disproportionate number of the world’s ongoing conflicts (and/or making them worse during and after they were in charge).

Historically, some kings and queens may have done well by their populace; others were corrupt, insane and/or horrible rulers. Kind of like presidents and prime ministers. The difference in this day and age is that at least the latter are presumably elected in some manner which weeds out (at least some) potential undesirable rulers, while the former are wholly inflicted on a country. A nation gets what it deserves in a free-and-fair election, but those ruled by royalty seem at greater risk of getting a raw deal in which they have no say.
  #20  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:46 PM
yo han go's Avatar
yo han go is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 347
There are many levels of monarchy. From absolute to joke. And pointing out UK as an example of a monarchy is like pointing out Disneyland as an educational service.

Back to the original question, there are some general pros and cons as with each governmental system. And true monarchy is just a variant of autocratic system, so there you go with your pros and cons.
  #21  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:49 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropo View Post
A nation gets what it deserves in a free-and-fair election, but those ruled by royalty seem at greater risk of getting a raw deal in which they have no say.
Personally I wouldn't swap Trump for any member of our royal family. Not even Prince Andrew. And last time we had a King who was even a fraction as bad as Trump (1938), he was removed with far less difficulty than you're having.

It's not democratic, but so what? The purpose of democracy is to secure good governance, it's not an end in itself, and fetishising it even when it fails is ridiculous. That said, if we ever get a monarch lik Edward VIII again, and they don't willingly leave, I would be supporting the abolition of the monarchy. Hopefully to be replaced by another apolitical Head of State of some sort.
  #22  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:53 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,876
“Here lies our sovereign Lord, the King,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.”
John Wilmot, Earl of Richmond to Charles II c1670.

Charles II in reply;
“The words are mine, the actions are those of my ministers”
  #23  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:29 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
What are you switching from at that time though?
Despotism

Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
But our UK Monarchy (children included) doesn't run anything.



Which country are you thinking of?
Here in the UK, the Monarchy has no say in the military budget.
Do you think we've got a secret police?
Could you let me know what they are called? And how does the Queen finance them?



Funny how the Queen is so popular here.
Opinion polls have regularly shown that Queen Elizabeth II has an excellent approval rating; coinciding with her Diamond Jubilee, the Queen had an approval rate in the United Kingdom of 90% in 2012...

Meanwhile in the US (a non-Monarchy), it's obvious that Trump doesn't care about anyone but his minority base.
Who said I was talking about england? I was talking about government.

Bruce Buena de Mesquita writes about game theory as it relates to politics, and about how to achieve ones goals (to obtain and stay in power, which are the root goals of politicians) one must find those who have the ability to help you obtain and keep power, and keep them happy under your rule.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/16...t_bibl_vppi_i0

In a democracy this means keeping 51% of the voters happy. In a dictatorship this means keeping the secret police and military leaders happy. Basically anyone who can organize a coup in a monarchy either has to be bribed or terrorized. Or both (usually both). But the public can just be terrorized with the secret police.

So in a monarchy, what incentive does the king/queen have to look out for the well being of the citizens? Maybe they'll be a good person who genuinely cares about their nation and people. But keep in mind these people have been told since birth that they are godlike, and that right and wrong are beneath them. This mentality of hoping the dictator cares about the people didn't work in North Korea where we'd had 3 generations of evil sociopaths in charge now.

Politicians will do what it takes to gain and keep power. In a democracy this includes winning enough votes and you win enough votes by doing things like getting your suppoters out to vote, preventing your opponents from voting, motivating your supporters with carrots (giveaways, good policies) and sticks (fear of what the other side will do).

My point about Kenya still stands. Imagine tomorrow that the UK and Kenya become one nation, and all Kenyans obtain full voting status. Now every Kenyan can vote in UK elections. What do you think happens to politics there? Politicians in the UK go from not giving a shit about the problems in Kenya to making them a top priority. Because now they know to get what they want (power) they have to give the people who determine whether they have power or not (voters) what they want.

In a monarchy you make sure the generals, secret police and a few top bureaucrats are bribed (but also afraid of each other) and you terrorize everyone else to stay in power.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-08-2019 at 07:33 PM.
  #24  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:51 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,801
Wesley Clark seems to me like is in effect using the word "monarchy" in the sense of its ultimate etimology, "rule by one".

Everyone else seems to be using it in the sense of how it is usually applied in the nations most of us live in.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 06-08-2019 at 07:52 PM.
  #25  
Old 06-08-2019, 08:24 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,876
Indeed
  #26  
Old 06-08-2019, 08:30 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,849
You guys are discussing monarchy as a cosmetic throwback to olden times. Which yes is different than an actual monarchy.

Modern monarchies that are just for show in modern democracies are one thing, but real monarchies are ruled with no incentive to show concern for the public's well being.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-08-2019 at 08:31 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:52 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,968
Except the question posed by the OP specifically mentions the UK monarchy, Wesley. If you don't want to address his question, so be it, but by stating that the UK isn't a real monarchy, you're changing the point of the discussion in this thread.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #28  
Old 06-08-2019, 11:45 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,797
I think a monarchy goes well with parliamentary-style governments. I think Presidential-style governments do not mix well with a Prime Minister style system because of the two kinds, the mixed one where the elected President and the Prime Minister both have a lot of power results in a lot of power struggles, and the one where the President does not have much power, the President is not as respected on the world stage as s/he would be if s/he were monarch.

Conversely, I'm not sure if a monarchy would detract from a strong elected Presidency, as there would not be a power struggle. It might be a benefit if their role were formalized, becoming like a permanent member of the Cabinet and requiring as a condition of the job for them and their heirs to be up to date on governmental workings. It might provide stability and perspective to new presidents and cabinets.

Last edited by Ludovic; 06-08-2019 at 11:46 PM.
  #29  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:27 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Theres just no incentive for the leaders in a monarchy to care about the well being of their citizens, anymore than there is incentive for an American politican to care about the well being of people in Kenya. If the US & Kenya became one nation, and the 50 million Kenyans suddenly became voting citizens of the US, then US politicians would start caring deeply and quickly about what the people of Kenya want because now they'd have something to gain or lose by keeping the Kenyans happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Modern monarchies that are just for show in modern democracies are one thing, but real monarchies are ruled with no incentive to show concern for the public's well being.
Louis XVI will be very glad to hear that.
  #30  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:51 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,346
I used to be a card-carrying republican. I'm a proud monarchist now. I don't think anything would really be improved by becoming a republic. Certainly many monarchies are quite generous social monarchies like Scandinavian kingdoms and the Netherlands. Not that monarchy = fairer society of course, but that there is no correlation that republic = fairer society either.

In fact I'd sometimes be inclined to say monarchy can help reconcile conservatives to incremental change, which republics can degenerate to party political identity.

As for meritocracy, election of the president isn't meritocratic either, it's merely a popularity contest, and I think we can all agree elections aren't producing the best politicians we could have right now. On the contrary a monarchy is trained from a very young age making them extremely well informed, and I wonder if a touch of familial concern and the weight of history is an incentive to try to do it right.

Certainly at least the UK has been fortunate with its royals for the past century at least.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #31  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:11 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
In real life the main problems with a monarchy is that they are not appointed by a meritocracy. Granted that doesn't happen in democracy either (Bill Clinton's wife ran against the son of a millionaire real estate developer in 2016. In 2012 the son of a successful CEO and governor ran against Obama who actually was self made. Bush Jr, McCain and Gore jr were scions of wealth and influence, etc).
You seem to be under the misconception that being a successful businessperson or executive makes you qualified to be a good politician.
  #32  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:14 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,119
I'm OK with people pretending to be in charge as long as they don't get tax money, that goes for any country.
  #33  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:44 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
You seem to be under the misconception that being a successful businessperson or executive makes you qualified to be a good politician.

And that "meritocracy" is an unalloyed good. The term was coined as a warning against the potential for arrogance, entitlement and self-replicating exclusion as a new ruling class, among those who think they reach the top entirely on their own merits, when other factors play into it just as much.
  #34  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:10 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,227
My take on it, is that a very large proportion of people seem to really want a monarch: Even in the supposedly-democratic US, out of 45 Presidents, we've had two sons of previous Presidents and one grandson, plus a great many lesser offices filled by relatives and "noble families". And if you're going to be having people pushing for a monarchy anyway, better to do it in a controlled way that doesn't lead to any power, than having it intrude on the established political systems.

And then they can go ahead and take the burden of ribbon-cuttings, sex scandals, and all of the other things people expect from monarchies off of the people with real power, too.
  #35  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:22 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,968
Here's an interesting fact: monarchical countries consistently rank high in a number of indices that are used to provide comparisons between standards of living in different countries.

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita: five out of the top ten.

Global Competitiveness Report: five out of the top ten.

Corruption Perceptions Index: seven out of the top ten. (i.e. least corrupt perception, in case there was any ambiguity there )

Human Development Index: four of the top ten.

Democracy Index: six of the top ten.

Considering that there are 193 sovereign states (going by membership in the UN), and only approximately 45 monarchies (roughly 23%), that suggests that monarchical countries are over-performing to be in the top ten of all these indices.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #36  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:29 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 187
I question the 45 monarchies number. Why isn't North Korea considered a monarchy? It has a hereditary dictatorship. I know his title isn't king or emperor, but it can't just be due to what he calls himself. They also call themselves democratic and a republic, but we don't choose to believe them.
  #37  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:40 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
“Here lies our sovereign Lord, the King,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.”
John Wilmot, Earl of Richmond to Charles II c1670.

Charles II in reply;
“The words are mine, the actions are those of my ministers”
I read this as a limerick and got really confused by the last line
  #38  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:50 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,772
Interesting discussion. Here's a hypothetical, though maybe an unlikely one: should the UK decide to abolish the monarchy (or future generations of US voters decide to change to a parliamentary system), how would the head of state be determined?
  #39  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:51 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Here's an interesting fact: monarchical countries consistently rank high in a number of indices that are used to provide comparisons between standards of living in different countries.
I'd like to reiterate my point about correlation and cause and effect.

What do you think happens to low performing monarchies?
  #40  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:26 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Except the question posed by the OP specifically mentions the UK monarchy, Wesley. If you don't want to address his question, so be it, but by stating that the UK isn't a real monarchy, you're changing the point of the discussion in this thread.
My mistake, I wasn't following the nature of the discussion.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #41  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:03 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Except the question posed by the OP specifically mentions the UK monarchy, Wesley. If you don't want to address his question, so be it, but by stating that the UK isn't a real monarchy, you're changing the point of the discussion in this thread.
Thats only because I know more about the UK than the others. Occasionally I read about the monarchs in other places like Denmark. No other countries hold royal weddings like the UK.
  #42  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:52 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Thats only because I know more about the UK than the others. Occasionally I read about the monarchs in other places like Denmark. No other countries hold royal weddings like the UK.
They don't? I'll have to let Felipe and his sisters know that their weddings were tiny little shindigs, barely a few hundred guests each and the country paralized... I'm sure Mohammed VI will also be happy to know his wedding and those of his siblings didn't cost anywhere near as much as his father's Treasurer insists they did, but he'd probably like to know where did the money go. And of course, the weddings of the house of Saud well, just a few friends with alcohol-free umbrella drinks, yes?

Americans' obsession with the British monarchy is not quite the same as British monarchs being the only ones who have big parties.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 06-09-2019 at 01:56 PM.
  #43  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Here's an interesting fact: monarchical countries consistently rank high in a number of indices that are used to provide comparisons between standards of living in different countries.

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita: five out of the top ten.

Global Competitiveness Report: five out of the top ten.

Corruption Perceptions Index: seven out of the top ten. (i.e. least corrupt perception, in case there was any ambiguity there )

Human Development Index: four of the top ten.

Democracy Index: six of the top ten.

Considering that there are 193 sovereign states (going by membership in the UN), and only approximately 45 monarchies (roughly 23%), that suggests that monarchical countries are over-performing to be in the top ten of all these indices.
Wait, of the top ten, Norway, Qatar and Denmark are the only Monarchies. And In Scandinavia, the Monarchs are pure figureheads. Qatar is indeed a monarchy, but it's has many issues, it is wealthy only due to the fortunate accident of having lots of oil. Luxembourg does have a Grand Duchess, again, nothing but a left over figurehead. I guess you could count Australia.


But yeah, the Western Euro nations mostly still have a figurehead Monarch, of whom QE2 actually has the most power- which she cant use, and is only theoretical. Harald V of Norway is in a similar position.

https://www.ranker.com/list/14-moder...r/carly-silver

Mostly Middle eastern and two euro micro-states.
  #44  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:19 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,801
It's more like, no other countries hold big royal shindigs that Americans and uninvolved third parties care about as much as they do the UK's. Unless it's an actual American involved a-la Grace or Noor.

And FWIW the UK weddings are big pointless shows but at least there is some ROI in tourism interest and public entertainment that you aren't getting for a Saudi or Qatari royal wedding even if they spend five times as much. And sure, at the other end, compared with the Brits the Scandinavian royals look modest and frugal and low-key but how hard is that?



Meanwhile back to the question at hand -- in modern Western constitutional monarchies, the persistence of the monarchy is more often an "if it ain't broke..." kind of phenomenon. The Norther European realms have organically evolved into parliamentary democracies and the monarchs have been reduced to ceremonial figureheads, and ocassionally as nominal "moderator" if the political officials can't get around to forming a government properly in a timely manner.

This means that if you got rid of them you would then have to periodically elect some retired politician or academic as figurehead/moderator State President a-la Israel/Germany/Italy. Probably more economical but not devoid of its own issues. Or switch to a Presidentialist-CEO system which right now to many of them may look like an iffy proposition.
  #45  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:30 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,968
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita: five out of the top ten.:

1. Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)
...
3. Norway (King Harald V)
...
6. Qatar (Emir Tamim bin Hamad)
...
9. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)

10. Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)


Global Competitiveness Report: five out of the top ten.:

5. Japan (Emperor Naruhito)

6. Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)
...
8. United Kingdom (Queen Elizabeth II)

9. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)

10. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)



Corruption Perceptions Index: seven out of the top ten. (i.e. least corrupt perception, in case there was any ambiguity there )

1. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)

2. New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)

3. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf) (four-way tie for 3rd rank)

7. Norway (King Harald V)

8. Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)

9. Canada (Queen Elizabeth II)

10. Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)



Human Development Index: four of the top ten.

1. Norway (King Harald V)
...
3. Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)
...
7. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)
...
10. Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)



Democracy Index: six of the top ten.

1. Norway (King Harald V)
...
3. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)

4. New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)

5. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)

6. Canada (Queen Elizabeth II) (two-way tie for 6th rank)
...
9. Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)


Interestingly, the United States only appears in the top ten on two lists, GDP (ranked as # 8) and Global Competitiveness (#1).
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #46  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita: five out of the top ten.:

1. Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)
...
3. Norway (King Harald V)
...
6. Qatar (Emir Tamim bin Hamad)
...
9. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)

10. Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)


Global Competitiveness Report: five out of the top ten.:

5. Japan (Emperor Naruhito)

6. Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)
...
8. United Kingdom (Queen Elizabeth II)

9. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)

10. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)



Corruption Perceptions Index: seven out of the top ten. (i.e. least corrupt perception, in case there was any ambiguity there )

1. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)

2. New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)

3. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf) (four-way tie for 3rd rank)

7. Norway (King Harald V)

8. Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)

9. Canada (Queen Elizabeth II)

10. Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)



Human Development Index: four of the top ten.

1. Norway (King Harald V)
...
3. Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)
...
7. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)
...
10. Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)



Democracy Index: six of the top ten.

1. Norway (King Harald V)
...
3. Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)

4. New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)

5. Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)

6. Canada (Queen Elizabeth II) (two-way tie for 6th rank)
...
9. Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)


Interestingly, the United States only appears in the top ten on two lists, GDP (ranked as # 8) and Global Competitiveness (#1).
And with the exception of Emir Tamim bin Hamad, they are all powerless figureheads. None of the others are Monarchies, they are Parliamentary Democracies with a Constitutional figurehead Monarch.

Luxembourg does have Grand Duke Henri, but they describe themselves as a "full democracy".
  #47  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:40 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,968
Constitutional monarchies are democratic, but also monarchies. For example, the Queen has powers under the constitution of Canada which only she can exercise.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #48  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:05 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Interesting discussion. Here's a hypothetical, though maybe an unlikely one: should the UK decide to abolish the monarchy (or future generations of US voters decide to change to a parliamentary system), how would the head of state be determined?
Who knows? It's not been discussed in Parliament and not seriously discussed outside organisations like Republic.

Disagreement over how to appoint a ceremonial President arguably swung the 1999 Australian referendum on the monarchy - disagreement over whether it should be directly elected (what! and make it political?!) versus having it appointed by Parliament (what! then what's the point if it's not more democracy?!)
  #49  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:25 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,968
We had a lengthy thread a few years ago on this very issue, Re Wiggler. My point was that it's easy to say "Let's get rid of the monarchy!" The hard question is "What do you replace it with?" That's why the Aussie proposal was defeated, as Malden Capell comments, and why in my opinion we'll never see a Republic of Canada - the current system is working, and trying to come up with a replacement that has the unanimous consent of all ten provinces and the federal Parliament is just not doable, in my opinion.

But, you never know. Someday the horse may learn to sing.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 06-09-2019 at 04:25 PM.
  #50  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:07 PM
UDS is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Here's an interesting fact: monarchical countries consistently rank high in a number of indices that are used to provide comparisons between standards of living in different countries . . .
Causation may run the other way, though. A high GDP/capita, good human development, low corruption etc may be conducive to the kind of political stability that enables otherwise anachronisti monarchies to survive. Monarchies are frequently overthrown by revolutions, or following unsuccessful wars. They will tend to be overrepresented among countries that haven't experienced either.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017