Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:22 PM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
Commander in chief is a figurehead?
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 06-09-2019 at 09:22 PM.
  #52  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Commander in chief is a figurehead?
Well, it comes with a spiffy uniform, but "However, Title IV of the constitution vests the administration of the armed forces and formulation of national defense policy with the President of the Government, a civil officer who is nominated and appointed by the king, confirmed by the elected Congress of Deputies and, as such, is representative of the Spanish people." wiki.
  #53  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:36 PM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
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.
You know. at times they will show a blurb on tv or it might get a notice in the newspaper of a non-UK wedding. However the UK ones are shown live. As was Dianes funeral.
  #54  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:39 PM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
You know. at times they will show a blurb on tv or it might get a notice in the newspaper of a non-UK wedding. However the UK ones are shown live. As was Dianes funeral.
Yes, but that's because, despite that stuff with the tea, y'all still see them as YOUR royals.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #55  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:39 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
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.

I believe if you check the history of the various monarchies, both extant and defunct, you'll discover that they most definitely could--and were--bought by special interests. You will also discover that there have been monarchies where the monarch is elected, and IIRC there is at least one monarchy where the monarch is elected today.
  #56  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:40 PM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, it comes with a spiffy uniform, but "However, Title IV of the constitution vests the administration of the armed forces and formulation of national defense policy with the President of the Government, a civil officer who is nominated and appointed by the king, confirmed by the elected Congress of Deputies and, as such, is representative of the Spanish people." wiki.
Day to day management of the country is done by the government, yes. Day to day. Note that, while I'm quoting that because I expect foreigners to be able to read it, being CiC is actually one of the reasons Spanish Republicans have for getting rid of the monarch, and "so who would you put in charge? A politician?" is the usual response. Load "politician" with more scorn than American movies put into "used car salesman".
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 06-09-2019 at 09:43 PM.
  #57  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:51 PM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,372
I read that they attempted to coax Afghanistans last king to come back to try and help unify that country.

When communism fell in Eastern Europe there were also some countries who looked into getting their monarchs back as a kind of symbol of national pride.

In Hawaii they still maintain the last queens garden and Iolani Palace on Maui and the islands most famous song is "Aloha Oe" which was written by the last queen.

So its not so much as I want a monarch to actually rule, I do see some benefit in their use as a national symbol.

HERE is an article about some countries where people are pushing a return of monarchs. Poland, Hungary, Russia, Serbia and Brazil.
  #58  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:22 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
In Hawaii they still maintain the last queens garden and Iolani Palace on Maui and the islands most famous song is "Aloha Oe" which was written by the last queen.

Iolani Palace is on Oahu. The Brick Palace is located on Maui.
  #59  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:00 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,386
There's too many different "monarchies" to fully generalize. but the main issue, I think is the hereditary principle ó the child of a monarch becomes the new monarch. Obviously there's a risk of getting a very bad King by chance, but the hereditary principle does have advantages.

A royal family may be so rich as to be incorruptible. The heir of a King may be raised from birth impressed that service is his only duty. Can anyone possibly believe that the wealthy son of a respected family taught that service was his duty would be likely to be as horrid a Head of State as Donald Trump?

Wealth is not 100% protection from corruption. A man with $20 billion might want $30 billion. Or might want to bring back Droit du seigneur. But most people in such a family would understand that theirs was an ancient privilege derived from the honor of their great-great grandfathers, and might think the preservation of that honor for their great-great grandchildren as worth more than an extra billion dollars.

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, ...
Strongly disagree. And note that most leaders require at least the implicit consent of (at least many of) those they govern.
  #60  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:31 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,028
Yes, I agree with Septimus on this point. Specifically, there was a very strong incentive for Charles II to pay attention to what his subjects wanted. Ditto for William & Mary, Anne, George I and so on.
__________________
"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."
  #61  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:43 AM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
There's too many different "monarchies" to fully generalize. but the main issue, I think is the hereditary principle ó the child of a monarch becomes the new monarch. Obviously there's a risk of getting a very bad King by chance, but the hereditary principle does have advantages.

A royal family may be so rich as to be incorruptible. The heir of a King may be raised from birth impressed that service is his only duty. Can anyone possibly believe that the wealthy son of a respected family taught that service was his duty would be likely to be as horrid a Head of State as Donald Trump?
.
Same with the Clintons. They were trying to bring up Chelsea.

The Kennedys did it. At least they tried.
  #62  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:22 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

Wealth is not 100% protection from corruption. A man with $20 billion might want $30 billion. Or might want to bring back Droit du seigneur.
A more likely negative might be that such a person might use what status they have to push an anti-vaxx platform, for instance.
  #63  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:02 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
A more likely negative might be that such a person might use what status they have to push an anti-vaxx platform, for instance.
Or, simply, to push for policies that tend to be favourable to the class of people who have $20 billion.

The notion that wealth buys security is illusory. Being wealthy just gives you a new existential fear; that you will lose your wealth, or have it taken from you, and therefore lose the conforting illusion of security that it brings you.
  #64  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:59 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
You know. at times they will show a blurb on tv or it might get a notice in the newspaper of a non-UK wedding. However the UK ones are shown live. As was Dianes funeral.
The Scandinavian royal weddings, the Luxembourgish heir's wedding, and even the wedding of Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen were all broadcast live on local TV in their respective countries, and some of them were officially livestreamed on the internet as well.

Now, American TV doesn't usually broadcast them, but then American TV doesn't generally broadcast many non-English-speaking events anyway.
  #65  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:39 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,151
I think a "mascot only" monarchy is fine. Probably good for tourism. If the queen ever started making her opinions known or contradicted the PM publicly it would be all over. People can project onto blank slates and love them. Charles is too openly political imo and is not nearly as loved. I'm worried about the monarchy's future when he is crowned and would love it if he abdicated to William, but he won't.

Mascot monarchies are an aberration in history though.
  #66  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:49 AM
Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,937
The British monarchy is not "mascot only".
  #67  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:00 AM
Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,351

Is it good or bad to have a monarchy?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
A more likely negative might be that such a person might use what status they have to push an anti-vaxx platform, for instance.


Replying to this and UDS quote immediately below it (I don't know how to multi-quote on my iPad)

There is a risk, although given what people have been saying that the monarchies that survive has relatively equal and egalitarian economies and societies, my intuition is that the British monarchy at least favours a somewhat more social democrat point of view, so might not be wild about soaking the poor.

But that aside, even if they were, and say in favour of anti-vax measures, there's nothing the monarch can do to get his way, apart from talking to the minister.

Rich private people can threaten to take their vote elsewhere, or campaign publicly against the minister, or donate money to he minister's rival. A monarch can do none of those things.

A minister who does an action that the monarch approves of is likely to have come to that conclusion themselves. A minister who was persuaded by the monarch must have been persuaded by some very good arguments (or sophistry!) - but the minister's mind is his own and is fully accountable for his own mind.

A minister persuaded by the monarch will have to say to himself 'hmm, His Majesty was quite persuasive. But telling parliament I did this because the King said so will make me look pathetic and bring the monarchy into disrepute. I'd better do my own independent research to make sure it's persuasive, and if so take ownership of it myself.'

Ashtura -

Likewise, I don't actually think the Prince of Wales has been overly political at all. The rules about political impartiality were only ever about the monarch themselves, as they are the only ones that constitutionally interact with parliament and government. There are conventions forming that these rules are equally as strict for the royal family but these conventions are very recent - indeed, much more recent than Charles' lifetime. He even sat on a Lords committee sometime in the Sixties. His predecessors, including the future Edward VII in particular, were quite active in parliament before their Accession.

Once Charles becomes King, the classic set of conventions bind him and bind him tight. He knows this. He's been making the most of his relative freedom as Heir to do what he can, before he becomes forever silenced.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Last edited by Malden Capell; 06-11-2019 at 03:01 AM.
  #68  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:04 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
. . . But that aside, even if they were, and say in favour of anti-vax measures, there's nothing the monarch can do to get his way, apart from talking to the minister.
That's quite a lot, actually, always having the ear of the Minister. The British monarch has the right to advise, to counsel and to warn; Ministers have to listen. Plus, the present British monarch is far more experienced than any of her Ministers; that means the wise minister will listen to the monarch, which of course magnifies the monarch's opportunity to influence.

But it's more than just having the ear of the Minister. Even now, the court has an important social function as part of the network of the UK political establishment. The monarch has the ear of the Minister, and she has the ear of many other people who have the ear of the Minister, and if so minded she or members of her family are in a position to make connections between individuals, introduce people to one another and generally construct and influence networks.

The monarch has little formal power but very considerable influence. There is of course a powerful ingrained culture about when and how that influence should be exercised, but if the monarch is minded to abuse their influence or exercise it in a malign or simply self-interested way, well, they could achieve quite a bit.
  #69  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Same with the Clintons. They were trying to bring up Chelsea.
You think the Clintons are a good example of family with high honor passed down from their great-great grandparents and/or wanting to start a monarchy. Got it, I guess.

And why am I not surprised you picked on the Clintons, but ignore the recent father-son duo? Do you ever get tired of purely partisan ranting?
  #70  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:52 AM
Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
That's quite a lot, actually, always having the ear of the Minister. The British monarch has the right to advise, to counsel and to warn; Ministers have to listen. Plus, the present British monarch is far more experienced than any of her Ministers; that means the wise minister will listen to the monarch, which of course magnifies the monarch's opportunity to influence.



But it's more than just having the ear of the Minister. Even now, the court has an important social function as part of the network of the UK political establishment. The monarch has the ear of the Minister, and she has the ear of many other people who have the ear of the Minister, and if so minded she or members of her family are in a position to make connections between individuals, introduce people to one another and generally construct and influence networks.



The monarch has little formal power but very considerable influence. There is of course a powerful ingrained culture about when and how that influence should be exercised, but if the monarch is minded to abuse their influence or exercise it in a malign or simply self-interested way, well, they could achieve quite a bit.


Well, except for the expectation that the monarch never talks policy with anyone but members of her cabinet. Such a monarch who sought to abuse their connections would be quickly found out. There's a lot of lukewarm monarchists and out and out republicans in British civil society who would love to breach a scandal like that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #71  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:56 AM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
That's quite a lot, actually, always having the ear of the Minister. The British monarch has the right to advise, to counsel and to warn; Ministers have to listen. Plus, the present British monarch is far more experienced than any of her Ministers; that means the wise minister will listen to the monarch, which of course magnifies the monarch's opportunity to influence.

But it's more than just having the ear of the Minister. Even now, the court has an important social function as part of the network of the UK political establishment. The monarch has the ear of the Minister, and she has the ear of many other people who have the ear of the Minister, and if so minded she or members of her family are in a position to make connections between individuals, introduce people to one another and generally construct and influence networks.

The monarch has little formal power but very considerable influence. There is of course a powerful ingrained culture about when and how that influence should be exercised, but if the monarch is minded to abuse their influence or exercise it in a malign or simply self-interested way, well, they could achieve quite a bit.
Doesnt the PM of the UK have regular sit down meetings with the queen?

I thought right after taking office he must go into a private meeting with her where he must bow, say official things , and she endorses him somehow?
  #72  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:05 AM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,246
People tend to defend the British monarchy based on vague claims of benefit like how they're not politicized or whatever. Well, sure, but they wouldn't be politicized if they were private citizens, either.

The question isn't whether Her Majesty does her job well or not (she does.) It's whether or not you need the job at all, and the only thing that really matters is this; is the United Kingdom better run than equivalent republics? Or if you look at monarchies, are they better run than republics? Is the UK better run than France? Is Japan better run than South Korea? Is Australia better run than Austria? Is Sweden better run than Finland?

All in all I just don't see it. The UK is currently in the middle of a self-destructive political tire fire of the most epic proportions. What good as the Queen done to avoid that?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #73  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:16 AM
Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
People tend to defend the British monarchy based on vague claims of benefit like how they're not politicized or whatever. Well, sure, but they wouldn't be politicized if they were private citizens, either.
? There are ceremonial presidencies that are meant to emulate the monarchy by being non-political, but I'm not sure how well that's attained. Most secure it by not having the position directly elected.



Quote:
The question isn't whether Her Majesty does her job well or not (she does.) It's whether or not you need the job at all, and the only thing that really matters is this; is the United Kingdom better run than equivalent republics? Or if you look at monarchies, are they better run than republics? Is the UK better run than France? Is Japan better run than South Korea? Is Australia better run than Austria? Is Sweden better run than Finland?



All in all I just don't see it. The UK is currently in the middle of a self-destructive political tire fire of the most epic proportions. What good as the Queen done to avoid that?

You seem to be blaming the monarchy for something it is not responsible for. The mess Britain is currently in is directly placed at the feet of those we elect.

The Queen is not meant to swoop in and make decisions that ought to be made by elected representatives. She's a ceremonial monarch, with an advisory, counselling role.

If Britain had been a republic, and Brexit had been voted for, we'd still be in this situation. Except for the chance that it might infect the Head of State in addition to every other position.

I wonder if the Cooper/Benn law, which was the first law passed against the will of the government in centuries, would have been passed if we had a president who might felt some latent justification in blocking it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #74  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:33 PM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,997
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?
It was an absolutely critical question in Aus a few years ago.

The majority of Australians, for whatever reason, wanted to break links with the 'English' monarchy. That left a vacancy for head of state, so how would that be handled? The majority of those who wanted to get rid of the Queen suggested a model. The majority of Australians rejected that model, so we retain links to the Queen.

There are a lot of countries that have 'gotten rid of the monarchy'. In Aus, two import models are Ireland (direct election?) and Greece (parliamentary election?).

Last edited by Melbourne; 06-11-2019 at 07:37 PM.
  #75  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:53 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Doesnt the PM of the UK have regular sit down meetings with the queen?
Yes, usually weekly, in private. (Although strictly speaking you're not supposed to sit in the presence of the monarch.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I thought right after taking office he must go into a private meeting with her where he must bow, say official things , and she endorses him somehow?
That doesn't happen after he takes office; it's how he takes office. After a PM resigns, the Queen sends for the new leader of the party/the winner of the general election/whatever and at an in-person meeting she asks him to form a government. He agrees, and kisses her hand. (Actually kisses her hand. This is not a figure of speech.)
And this is what constitutes him as Prime Minister. Traditionally, on leaving that meeting he is driven directly to No. 10 Downing Street.
  #76  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:03 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,233
Absolute monarchy is a subset of monarchies, In most monarchies the monarch has limited to no powers and the governing system is democratic. They are still monarchies.

Over time, it does seem to me that monarchies outperform non-monarchies. It does not seem to be a very strong trend and seems to be mostly an average over time. But Spain and Portugal, Ireland and the UK, Sweden and Finland, Norway and Iceland, Thailand... Generally, two nations right next to each other the monarchy will be a bit better off.
  #77  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:47 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The UK is currently in the middle of a self-destructive political tire fire of the most epic proportions. What good as the Queen done to avoid that?
As noted by Malden Capell, Brexit is a purely political issue and Mrs Windsor does not interfere, or even make her views known. Whether she is personally of the Leave or Remain persuasion, I would suspect she's as ticked off with the political process as any constituent and is showing commendable restraint.

Were the Brexit question to be or become a constitutional issue then there might be some firmer guiding hand of advise to be applied.

The difference is with the US model where the hat of the Head of State and the hat of the Head of Government are worn by the same head. Therefore every intractable 51:49 political brouhaha gets thrashed out with no neutral umpire.
  #78  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:16 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,273
Not healthy to have a monarchy that is intertwined with your state religion, like in Japan. Hirohito believed that he, and his family, were descendants of gods, and a fair number or ordinary Japanese people still do.
  #79  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:14 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Absolute monarchy is a subset of monarchies, In most monarchies the monarch has limited to no powers and the governing system is democratic. They are still monarchies.

Over time, it does seem to me that monarchies outperform non-monarchies. It does not seem to be a very strong trend and seems to be mostly an average over time. But Spain and Portugal, Ireland and the UK, Sweden and Finland, Norway and Iceland, Thailand... Generally, two nations right next to each other the monarchy will be a bit better off.
Gotta point out that, over the time since the two countries have separated, Ireland has outperformed the UK. Also that the US has outperformed Canada, France has outperformed Spain and Germany has outperformed Denmark. So it's not difficult to find counter-examples to your thesis.

But the truth is that comparing two countries simply because they share a border doesn't make a lot of sense. It would make more sense to compare monarchies as a whole with a group of non-monarchies that is broadly comparable in terms of size, econcomic development, etc.

But, as I suggested earlier, if there's a pattern here the causaton could well be the other way around. Monarchical countries may not have done well because they are monarchies so much as they may be monarchies because they have done well. Peace and prosperity tends to make for political stability; political stability is conducive to the survival of monarchies.
  #80  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:53 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Gotta point out that, over the time since the two countries have separated, Ireland has outperformed the UK. Also that the US has outperformed Canada, France has outperformed Spain and Germany has outperformed Denmark. So it's not difficult to find counter-examples to your thesis.
You may have a point on Ireland. I would not argue that the US has done better than Canada, Canada seems to do better on most socioeconomic measures. And Germany has hardly had a better average than Denmark since leaving its monarchy behind.
Franc may have outperformed Spain, but I am not so sure of Belgium and Nederlands.

But I tried to pick countries with few confounding differences. Similar geopolitical locations, histories, often similar languages and sizes. Rather than a general comparison of nations, compare proximate ones with fewer differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
But, as I suggested earlier, if there's a pattern here the causaton could well be the other way around. Monarchical countries may not have done well because they are monarchies so much as they may be monarchies because they have done well. Peace and prosperity tends to make for political stability; political stability is conducive to the survival of monarchies.
Have the current monarchies been more politically stable historically then? Spain was a dictatorship, the BeNeLux and two of the Scandinavian ones were invaded and occupied. At least for Norway, Spain and Belgium I think there is a strong argument that the stability is directly attributable to the monarchy, not the other way around.
  #81  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:37 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
It was an absolutely critical question in Aus a few years ago.

The majority of Australians, for whatever reason, wanted to break links with the 'English' monarchy. That left a vacancy for head of state, so how would that be handled? The majority of those who wanted to get rid of the Queen suggested a model. The majority of Australians rejected that model, so we retain links to the Queen.

There are a lot of countries that have 'gotten rid of the monarchy'. In Aus, two import models are Ireland (direct election?) and Greece (parliamentary election?).
Thanks for this. What was the proposed model?
  #82  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,388
When monarchs have any actual power, generally the places end up shitholes. Local example.
  #83  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:12 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Thanks for this. What was the proposed model?
1999 Australian republic referendum followed from the Constitutional Convention in 1998.

Three models proposed from the Convention; in precis:
1. Appointment by a select Council.
2. Selected by two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament
3. Direct popularly elected

The bi-partisan (#2) model was taken to a referendum and failed, primarily because the monarchists didn't want any republican model (if it ain't broke don't fix it) while the radical republicans loathed model #2 (vote no to the politician's president) and if they couldn't get a direct election (which ironically would have delivered a partisan politician as president) they opted for the status quo, likely thinking that if the referendum failed there would be sufficient public interest to give them a second chance.

That was only ever a pipe dream and popular zeal for the cause has waned substantially. Another attempt at constitutional reform is unlikely within the next generation, maybe not in the next century.
  #84  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:03 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
When monarchs have any actual power, generally the places end up shitholes. Local example.
Counterexample: Liechtenstein; in contrast to most other European nations, Prince Hans Adam II has expanded his powers during his reign, including the right to veto any legislation and to dismiss any government minister. When he proposed the new constitution in 2003, he threatened that if it didn't pass he would move to Austria; it passed.

In the aftermath of World War II, Liechtenstein was an agricultural backwater and the princely family lost most of their landed wealth in Bohemia and Silesia; today, the country has one of the world's highest standards of living and Hans Adam makes the list of the world's wealthiest monarchs.
  #85  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:08 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
1999 Australian republic referendum followed from the Constitutional Convention in 1998.

Three models proposed from the Convention; in precis:
1. Appointment by a select Council.
2. Selected by two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament
3. Direct popularly elected

The bi-partisan (#2) model was taken to a referendum and failed, primarily because the monarchists didn't want any republican model (if it ain't broke don't fix it) while the radical republicans loathed model #2 (vote no to the politician's president) and if they couldn't get a direct election (which ironically would have delivered a partisan politician as president) they opted for the status quo, likely thinking that if the referendum failed there would be sufficient public interest to give them a second chance.

That was only ever a pipe dream and popular zeal for the cause has waned substantially. Another attempt at constitutional reform is unlikely within the next generation, maybe not in the next century.
I understand objections to all of those. How much power does Australia's head of state have? In looking at the Irish and Greek systems, the head of state seems to be largely limited in power, which seems to be a pretty important component of success for abolishing the monarchy.
  #86  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:09 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Counterexample: Liechtenstein; in contrast to most other European nations, Prince Hans Adam II has expanded his powers during his reign, including the right to veto any legislation and to dismiss any government minister. When he proposed the new constitution in 2003, he threatened that if it didn't pass he would move to Austria; it passed.

In the aftermath of World War II, Liechtenstein was an agricultural backwater and the princely family lost most of their landed wealth in Bohemia and Silesia; today, the country has one of the world's highest standards of living and Hans Adam makes the list of the world's wealthiest monarchs.

Microstates dont count, really, since lots of stuff is handled by others. They have no military, for example.
  #87  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:04 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Have the current monarchies been more politically stable historically then? Spain was a dictatorship, the BeNeLux and two of the Scandinavian ones were invaded and occupied. At least for Norway, Spain and Belgium I think there is a strong argument that the stability is directly attributable to the monarchy, not the other way around.
The Monarchy in Spain only exist today because Franco chose to use it to legitimize his dictatorship. I'd call it an outlier in this data set.

None of the other countries were invaded due to political instability, so I don't see why you even mention that.

And a great comparison to the Scandinavian countries are Iceland and Finland, who are just as stable without monarchy.

There is of course a danger here of this becoming tautological, since the transition from monarchy in Europe has generally been due to violence of some sort, but to me that signifies a need to provide better evidence that monarchy has contributed significantly to the stability of certain countries, rather than the stability of certain countries having allowed monarchy to remain the system of government.

Last edited by naita; 06-12-2019 at 11:05 AM.
  #88  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:18 AM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
You seem to be blaming the monarchy for something it is not responsible for. The mess Britain is currently in is directly placed at the feet of those we elect.
With due respect, you could not possibly have missed the point by a more absurd margin.

The point isn't that Queen Elizabeth is responsible for Brexit, because of course she isn't; I'm not an idiot. The point is that she doesn't make any positive difference at all.

Let me say it again; if the monarchy were good for the governance of the UK you'd be able to show how it makes the UK a better run country. But there is simply no evidence at all that that's true.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #89  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
The Monarchy in Spain only exist today because Franco chose to use it to legitimize his dictatorship. I'd call it an outlier in this data set.
Franco used it to turn Spain into a functioning democracy instead of continuing a dictatorship. Franco should be a great hero in Spain. He kept Spain from disintegrating into a plethora of small nations (which may be happening now), from going Commie, and kept Spain out of WW2. he then, instead of passing on the reins of dictator to a successor, set up the monarchy and brought in a peaceful transition to a working democracy.

If the Republicans had won, Spain would have split, with several going Communist. Germany would have invaded. Spain would today be in the sitrep of what used to be Yugoslavia, with more civil wars, ethic cleansings, secret police, and what not.

Dont get me wrong Franco was a dictator and fairly brutal at times. Just that the alternative would have been far, far worse.
  #90  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:52 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
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?
And they don't share real Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee with the rest of the world.
  #91  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:02 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
The Monarchy in Spain only exist today because Franco chose to use it to legitimize his dictatorship. I'd call it an outlier in this data set.
I am not sure that qualifies. I don't see why that makes it an outlier? In any case, the Spanish King personal denouncement of the 1981 coup attempt is generally seen as the final end of the coup. Its hard to think of a more solid example of a monarch functioning as a stabilizing force. Outside of Thailand anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
None of the other countries were invaded due to political instability, so I don't see why you even mention that.
Invasions generally cause political instability. How similar were the governments of France, Austria, Poland, etc to the pre-occupation ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
And a great comparison to the Scandinavian countries are Iceland and Finland, who are just as stable without monarchy.
What? How is having a civil war in any way stable?
  #92  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:04 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The point is that she doesn't make any positive difference at all.
Well, if nothing else, not chucking more kerosene on the political tire fire is a positive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by House of Cards Series IV
Liz Windsor, exasperated as the rest of the UK populace decides to pull rank.
ER: Fuck it, Theresa May-te Ö just revoke Article 50 and letís put this shit show behind us.
TM: Iím sorry míam I canít do that. We had a referendum and the people have spoken.
ER: Yeah, but you canít get it done. I need to install somebody else.
TM: I have had my majority tested on the floor of Parliament. I have had my majority tested in the Conservative party room. I won both.
ER: Fat lot of good thatís done any of us. No, piss off. Iíll call Corbyn.

ER: Jeremy, how they hanging? Listen I want you to form a government, revoke Article 50 and call an election.
JC: Iím sorry míam. I canít form a government. I donít have a majority in the House and likely would lose a caucus vote.
ER: Bloody hell, it canít be this hard. Whatís Borisís number?

UKVotes2019: UK voters reject the Johnson lead Conservatives in a landslide, installing a Labour/SDP coalition government with Remain platform but in the second referendum on BRexit vote 51:49 for LEAVE.
QEII-exit now proposed as only viable solution to constitutional crisis.

ER: Hey Phil, any of your relos still holding sovereignty over a Greek island or summat?
DoE: No but Villa Guardamangia our old loveshack in Malta is up for sale. Needs a bit of work though. Maybe we could offer Simon Cowell a gig to stage some renovation reality TV show there.

ER: Bugger, even the bloody Romanovs are laughing at us now.
  #93  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:26 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I am not sure that qualifies. I don't see why that makes it an outlier? In any case, the Spanish King personal denouncement of the 1981 coup attempt is generally seen as the final end of the coup. Its hard to think of a more solid example of a monarch functioning as a stabilizing force. Outside of Thailand anyway.
So Spanish get's to be an example of stability after a civil war and decades of dictatorship. And Finland get's to be an example of instability for not having a perfect transition to independence?


Quote:
Invasions generally cause political instability. How similar were the governments of France, Austria, Poland, etc to the pre-occupation ones?
The French government changed on a continuum, Austria was annexed by Germany rather than occupied, and was then occupied by the allies, if they'd still have had a monarchy the Allies would likely have required the end of it, Poland was already a mess.


Quote:
What? How is having a civil war in any way stable?
Finland necessarily has to be evaluated by stability after independence, and I find it natural to give them a grace period.
  #94  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:44 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Absolute monarchy is a subset of monarchies, In most monarchies the monarch has limited to no powers and the governing system is democratic. They are still monarchies.

Over time, it does seem to me that monarchies outperform non-monarchies. It does not seem to be a very strong trend and seems to be mostly an average over time. But Spain and Portugal, Ireland and the UK, Sweden and Finland, Norway and Iceland, Thailand... Generally, two nations right next to each other the monarchy will be a bit better off.

You're holding up the Thai "monarchy" as something good? Oh, please.
  #95  
Old 06-13-2019, 03:52 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 360

Good if constitutional


A number of European countries still have a monarch around, and with the exception of the Greeks, who threw them out repeatedly, it seems to work OK. They provide a live show for tourists, keep then gossip columnists in business, do all the ceremonial stuff for visiting dignitaries and do a lot of "how nice ... jolly good" small talk when visiting their subjects in hospitals and the like. In short, a nicely costumed PR show.

These days any authority they have is pretty much formal rubber-stamping of what parliament had decided. They keep out of the day to day political furballs, but exist as a restraining influence, potentially at least, if some politician decides to be less than democratic. And they are the head of state of last resort, if all else has gone. The original backup plan.

Oh, and they are great for boosting tourism.
  #96  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Over time, it does seem to me that monarchies outperform non-monarchies. It does not seem to be a very strong trend and seems to be mostly an average over time. But Spain and Portugal, Ireland and the UK, Sweden and Finland, Norway and Iceland, Thailand... Generally, two nations right next to each other the monarchy will be a bit better off.
You may be right. Among Siam's neighbors, Burma, Laos and Cambodia suffered severe problems. Malaysia hasn't had trouble: it is also a constitutional monarchy. Cambodia's problems began about when its monarch was overthrown.

The personal morality and charisma of the individual Monarch may be relevant. Rama IX was a very special man but he passed away in 2016. (BTW, I'm curious about U.S. news reports on our current crisis, but am afraid to Google. Would appreciate discussion here or via PM.)

Last edited by septimus; 06-13-2019 at 06:20 AM.
  #97  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:28 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Absolute monarchy is a subset of monarchies, In most monarchies the monarch has limited to no powers and the governing system is democratic. They are still monarchies.

Over time, it does seem to me that monarchies outperform non-monarchies. It does not seem to be a very strong trend and seems to be mostly an average over time. But Spain and Portugal, Ireland and the UK, Sweden and Finland, Norway and Iceland, Thailand... Generally, two nations right next to each other the monarchy will be a bit better off.
For several of those pairs the republican pair differs in significant ways that can be said to be both the cause of their lack of monarchy and any differences in performance. Three of them have been ruled, and to greater and lesser extent oppressed, by neighbours for several hundred years. If anything they would show that bad monarchy leads to instability with long lasting effects.
  #98  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:41 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
So Spanish get's to be an example of stability after a civil war and decades of dictatorship. And Finland get's to be an example of instability for not having a perfect transition to independence?
The Spanish Kings putting down the 1981 coup attempt seems to me to be a direct example of a Monarch acting as a stabilizing force in extremis. As for Finland, it may be easier to compare it to Norway with whom it shares a border and which gained independence at a fairly similar time and in a similar economic position.

Finland chose a republican form of government, Norway went for a monarchy. Finland then had a civil war with the communists on one side. Ten years later, when revolutionary communists won the election in Norway, the King intervened to guide the situation to a peaceful incorporation of the revolutionaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
The French government changed on a continuum, Austria was annexed by Germany rather than occupied, and was then occupied by the allies, if they'd still have had a monarchy the Allies would likely have required the end of it, Poland was already a mess.
Yes, but my argument is that conquest and occupation is a big source of turmoil.

The argument was advanced that the current set of monarchies remain monarchies because they have experience more stability in their history.

My point is that upon closer examination of their histories, it is not so calm and stable. It merely appears that way from todays perspective because these states have managed to weather the turmoil well. And in many cases we can see the active intervention of a monarch stabilizing the situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
For several of those pairs the republican pair differs in significant ways that can be said to be both the cause of their lack of monarchy and any differences in performance.
Its hard to disagree with that. The group is simply very small. However, my point remains that across these differences (which are not the same from pair to pair) monarchies do better overall. A bit better such as Sweden and Finland, or a lot such as Denmark and Germany. Both as a group and when compared individually to similar cases.
  #99  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:21 PM
yo han go's Avatar
yo han go is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 348
Monarchy can work if a lot of ifs get iffed to unif the situation to not be not if. So, basically you might get stable long term (centuries!) government (fairy tales agree), which is impossible in this RL world now, as things tend to get iffed really quickly by the sheer mass of ifs. (if = x)

So Monarchies are passe by a large margin now. I simply can not see any reason to vote for fresh monarchy, although, old ones might be sometimes beneficiary for tourism and general moral rising purposes (when paparazzi-proofed). I'd say also for general peon upscale gossiping, but we have reality shows for that now.

Last edited by yo han go; 06-13-2019 at 08:22 PM.
  #100  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:38 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
. . . The argument was advanced that the current set of monarchies remain monarchies because they have experience more stability in their history.

My point is that upon closer examination of their histories, it is not so calm and stable. It merely appears that way from todays perspective because these states have managed to weather the turmoil well. And in many cases we can see the active intervention of a monarch stabilizing the situation.

Its hard to disagree with that. The group is simply very small. However, my point remains that across these differences (which are not the same from pair to pair) monarchies do better overall. A bit better such as Sweden and Finland, or a lot such as Denmark and Germany. Both as a group and when compared individually to similar cases.
But there's a survivor bias at work here. There are many examples from history where the active intervention of a monarch has not stabilised the situation, or has destablised it. Those countries tend not to be monarchies today. "Tending to stablise the sitaution" may be not so much a characteristic of monarchies as a characteristic of the monarchies that have survived. But in fact the great bulk of monarchies that existed in the modern era have not survived; they probably tell us far more about the pros and cons of monarchy in general than the relatively few that have survived.
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 09:27 AM.

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