I suggest you go to a dictionary and look up the word “joke.”
Or aren’t we allowed to make jokes about our president any more? Why, that would make him a dictator!
We’re allowed to. But it’s not mandatory. I’m no fan of Bush but I’m getting tired of seeing all these drive-by bashings in threads that have nothing to do with him.
Out of curiosity, unless you are the deposed monarch and stand to personally gain from it, what would be the incentive to return to a monarchy? It’s an inherently unjust form of government - what do people see as desirable in it?
Well, compared to, say, the idea of Afghanistan’s recent chaos, I’d see where using the re-establishment of a monarchy as a unifying figure for a country as a good thing. Similarly there are a number of Constitutional Monarchies that I don’t believe are any more “inherently unjust” than other currently existing governments. (Japan and England are what I’m thinking about, here.)
In short, if the return to a monarchy can be a tool for returning stability to a region that’s fallen into civil war, I’d be all for it. I’m not sure that anyone’s proven in those cases where that is the formula behind the monarchist’s arguments that it would have that effect, but I won’t deny the possibility out of hand.
There’s also the current pretender to the Serbian throne, Crown Prince Alexander. He’s also supposed to have a very good chance.
My daughter is descended from the last king of Beara*, according to my wife. The daughter much enjoys this theory, and I wouldn’t put a restoration beyond her.
*Beara – peninsula on the west side of Ireland.
There are inherent problems in a hereditary monarchy, true. However, a constitutional monarchy (such as that in Britain or Spain), where the monarch has no real powers and acts as a symbol of a democratic government run by those elected by the people, is far preferable to a republic run by a dictator – no, I’m not thinking of the US (which is not a dictatorship, regardless of what you feel about the current administration): I’m thinking of Spain, under Franco, before the monarchy was restored.
(And only 8 years ago, when offered a choice between a particular form of monarchy and a particular form of republican government, the voters of Australia chose to remain with the monarchy).
Although not really a topic for GQ, are you suggesting that the UK, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands and Spain have an “unjust” form of government?
A national symbol A governmental figure who acts as a (minor) check of the political class. A person who is beyond the rival political and ethnic groups of the nation.
For all intents and purposes, modern constitutional monarchies aren’t much different than parliamentary republics. They just have mascots. I’m not sure what kind of powers the monarchist movements referred to here want to give the monarch.
If you want an example of the value of having a monarch, you might point to Thailand. Since 1932, Thailand has had 17 governmental systems, the most recent change being an overthrow by a military junta last year. All of them have acknowledged the hereditary monarch as head of state, which has provided a lot of stability. To say the king is revered in Thailand is an understatement. Lèse majesté is a major crime. It helps that King Bhumibol has generally behaved responsibly, intelligently and in the best interest of his nation as he sees it. He’s the longest-serving current head of state (since 1950).
This was sort of an odd case, and I hope Nava or one of our other Spanish members can correct as necessary and fill in more details. What I read was that, years before Franco’s death there was a plebiscite in which the Spanish people voted to become a monarchy upon Franco’s death. What makes this odd, in my view, is that this election clearly had to be sanctioned by Franco and, moreover, he obviously felt no inclination to repudiate the result. So it’s a case of a fascist dictator who seemed to have no particular concern that the state as he ruled it should continue after his death.
Um, this is kind of a “yes and no” situation. Juan Carlos’s grandfather, King Alphonso XIII, was deposed in 1931, and replaced by a republic. The republic, however, had two strikes against it: 1. It was consistently run by leftist parties, and to the significant right wing of Spain, well, think of the absolute worst rants you’ve ever heard by ultraconservatives, and multiply by four. 2. There was quite a bit of incompetence and/or corruption, so that the various ministries serving under the republic became less and less effective. Net result was that the Army, under Franco, revolted beginning in 1936. By spring 1939 the outcome was certain.
But Franco, while exercising dictatorial power and strongly supported by the Falangistas (Spain’s variant on Fascism), did not couch his government as equivalent to Hitler’s or Mussolini’s. Rather, as Generalisimo of the Army and Caudillo of the State, he was the regent for the restored monarchy. But, like Admiral Horthy in Hungary (and the Stewards of Gondor), having a vacant throne to point to as the source of his authority suited Franco. The surviving Borbons (Alfonso and his son Don Juan) were, in general, not interested in giving Franco’s regime legitimacy, and he did not want a monarch not content to be merely a figurehead.
However, take note that the theory, the legal-fiction convention, was that Spain was a monarchy, presently governed by “faithful servant of the crown Francisco Franco” during an unfortunately prolonged interregnum. Though this was out of line with the political reality, it continued to be the patriotic myth underlying that reality.
Don Juan’s grandson Juan Carlos, however, was a different breed of cat. He ingratiated himself with the aging Franco, hinting that he would continue the policies of the Franco regime, and in general set himself up as a pretender with a real chance to return to the throne.
Accordingly, there was a decree (1968 IIRC) that on Franco’s death or resignation, Juan Carlos would ascend the throne. (I don’t recall one way or the other about whether there was a plebiscite.) And in 1975 this indeed happened – but Juan Carlos surprised everyone and turned it into a representative modern constitutional monarchy.
Psst! I believe you mean Don Juan’s son. 
Interestingly enough, Don Juan was actually the fourth son of Alfonso VIII-his first two elder brothers were hemophiliacs. The eldest, Infante Alfonso, renounced his right to the throne to marry a commoner. The second, Infante Jaime, was also a hemophiliac as well as a deaf-mute and stepped down because of that.
There was another boy between Jaime and Juan, Fernando, who was stillborn.
Guin is of course right – I meant Old King Alfonso’s grandson (and Don Juan’s son) Juan Carlos.
Unlike Spain, Norway did have a plebescite on the restoration of the monarchy. When the union between Norway and Sweden was dissolved in 1905, the Norwegian throne was suddenly vacant. The sitting parliament at the time favored monarchy, and chose Prince Carl of Denmark as their favored candidate. Carl agreed on the condition that a referendum be called to determine if the voters wanted a monarchy or a republic. Something close to 80% of votes favored the monarchy. Prince Carl and his young son Alexander assumed the names and titles of Haakon VII and Crown Prince Olav, respectively, and arrived in Christiania two weeks later.
Nobody wants to see Zod back in power. All that kneeling and trying to kill Superman and such. Plus, we only JUST repaired what he did to the White House!
Prince Michael of Albany claims to be the rightful king ofScotland
It’s hard to see how he could be king of Scotland without also being king of England: why does he limit his ambition in this way?
Well, yes and no. On the one hand, almost all modern monarchies have nothing to do with actually governing. The monarch’s role is strictly ceremonial. (Well, I’m assuming this based on how the British system works. I didn’t even know some of those countries still had monarchies.)
On the other hand, a monarchy means a du jure policy of certain people being ‘superior’ by birth, and that is unjust. But I don’t want to drag this out of GQ, so I’ll let it go.
Not necessarily.