Same with the Clintons. They were trying to bring up Chelsea.
The Kennedys did it. At least they tried.
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.
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.
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.
The British monarchy is not “mascot only”.
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
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.
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?
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
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?
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?
? 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.
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
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?).
Yes, usually weekly, in private. (Although strictly speaking you’re not supposed to sit in the presence of the monarch.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.