All else equal, would you prefer having a republic or a monarchy? Note that either the republic or monarchy can take form (ie a revolutionary socialist republic or a capitalist republic, a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy etc.)
I personally prefer a republic, although I generally support maintaining monarchies where they already exist, are limited in powers, and are not rallying points for Reaction.
I’d like to live in a republic, but have the rest of the world be monarchies. Does that make sense? Probably not.
I personally have no desire to be a “subject” of a king or queen, even on paper. I want to be a citizen and be equal to every one of my fellow citizens under the law.
But I love visiting monarchies as a tourist–even the piddly ones like Monaco and Luxembourg. I love the whole thing–the royal palaces, the cathedrals where the royals are crowned, the art museums with their portraits, the cemeteries where ten or twenty generations are buried.
I just don’t want to live there.
I live in a constitutional monarchy (UK), and I find great pride in our monarchy. I’d rather live in one, but that’s just me.
Just for Freddy’s benefit - I’m a UK citizen. Nobody has been called a subject here for decades, and even when they were, it constitutes zero difference from being a citizen.
I went with monarchy mostly out of nostalgia even though my ancestors had a mixed reaction/result; we loved it but were far enough away from the seat of government and control not to feel the sword so much. And when the sword was used, it was often one of us swinging it.
I understand the lure of republics and equality and all but the reality is often so different than the idea that I would be curious to try living under something different.
The Windsors are more entertaining than the Kardashians.
Absolute monarchy if I get to be King, republic otherwise.
Sweden claims to be a monarchy.
Sudan claims to be a republic.
Where would you rather be poor?
Netherlands claims to be a monarchy.
China claims to be a republic.
Where would you rather be a political dissident?
Would-be reformers worry too much about form, not enough about function.
I greatly prefer a republic all other things being equal so that’s what I marked; however as mentioned earlier by others I’ve no problem with a symbolic constitutional monarchy that stays out of the way, is light on the budget and whose royals behave themselves and have a life. The Scandinavians seem to meet the bill, Britain tends to fail on many of those but they vindicate themselves by it being acceptable and even expected to mock and ridicule the royal family, while there are still otherwise respectable republics where you’d better measure your words when referring to the big cheese. The House of Saud can go do something *haram *to themselves, and soon.
In a manner of speaking the Commonwealth Realms have a clever arrangement. The Monarch and the Royals are safely all the way back in Britain at UK expense except for a couple of days every few years, and the viceregal official (Governor General) is appointed by the crown upon recommendation of the local sitting government and most days could be proxied by a potted plant (though the Canadian GG does still get a cool uniform of his or her own)
Absolute monarchy if I get to a Queen.
I’d rather have the whole incompetent, self-serving, thieving, corrupt parliament of busybody whores hanged from lampposts and elevate our king to his proper station. One King is better than 159 petty rulers stuffing their own pockets.
Republic.
But constitutional monarchy (a “crowned republic,” as some poli sci professors have dubbed them) can work well, providing a stable, historic and symbolic embodiment of the state while an elected government wields real political power. The UK is Exhibit A.
Maybe we should draw a distinction between constitutional monarchies, which exhibit most of the important characteristics of republics, and more absolutist monarchies, like say… Saudi Arabia.
Similarly, there’s a world of difference between republics like the United States, and “republics” like say… the Soviet Union. One literally called itself a union of republics, and the other makes no official mention of being a republic (other than the Pledge of Allegiance), but they were drastically different. Similarly, Iran is a republic, but for years, the religious authorities have controlled things, while the UK is not a republic, but is one of the most democratic and free places around.
I think ultimately, I’d prefer whichever one was more freely democratic, title be damned.
