Monarchy vs. Republic

Living in Britain, many other nationalities think we're a Monarchy, hence our Royal Family, but we're actually a Republic, as we elect our leaders, while the Royal Family basically exist to promote Britain around the world and bring tourism.

Although I believe democracy is better, remember what happened to the Weimar Republic? Sometimes, the people elect the wrong person, and end up being ruled by a Nazi dictator.

Britain is currently under a coalition government as we speak, and it's not going that well. Sometimes, maybe it is better to know who's running your country, so it's easier to point the finger at one person.

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

Living in Britain, many other nationalities think we're a Monarchy, hence our Royal Family, but we're actually a Republic, as we elect our leaders, while the Royal Family basically exist to promote Britain around the world and bring tourism.

Although I believe democracy is better, remember what happened to the Weimar Republic? Sometimes, the people elect the wrong person, and end up being ruled by a Nazi dictator.

Britain is currently under a coalition government as we speak, and it's not going that well. Sometimes, maybe it is better to know who's running your country, so it's easier to point the finger at one person.

Or heck, how about the Middle East? Groups in the US are always spouting rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy, and then act surprised when the locals use that freedom and democracy to implement policies similar or identical to the ones that served as pretext for intervention to begin with.

I have one opinion on this topic. If we could guarantee righteous (and wise) rulers, monarchy would be the best form of government. Things would get done quickly and it would be good decisions for everyone. But since power has a tendency to corrupt, we best stick to republics. Maybe if the monarch was forced to live like an ordinary person and couldn't get all the wealth and power he wanted, maybe it would work.

I am against monarchies on principle, to the extent that I would decline any honor or noble title offered to me, and, as long as it would not put me in physical danger, would refuse to bow to any monarch or address them using royal titles.

There is really benefit to a monarchy except cultural value. If the peoples' taxes pay for a single family's upkeep, millions of dollars are being wasted monthly that could be used for more important issues, like education, defense, or internal improvements.

The very existence of a hierarchical monarchy leads to increased deference and reduced social mobility. If children are taught in schools that some people are better than them just because of what family they were born into, they'll live their lives feeling somewhat inferior. On the flipside, many members of the royalty could find it completely fine to do nothing that helps society. While of course very many aristocrats are or have been great philanthropists, the vast, vast majority of noblepersons throughout human history have done little more than live off of the people and give nothing back.

There are no practical benefits of a monarchy. Although Dovahkiin pointed out that House of Windsor earns a profit for the United Kingdom through the lease of land owned by the family, that's a very indirect effect of monarchy. If not for the aristocratic system, the family would likely not own the land. Monarchy is a great system for primitive societies and feudal states, as it's a simple, organized system that encourages patriotism, but has no real political bearing on the modern world.

Culturally, though, monarchies can be very valuable. As the King of Spain is the head of state, he is, as Louis XIV eloquated, the state himself. Therefore, the royal family becomes a symbol of the nation. Even though very few Britons believe in the Divine Right of royalty, the Crown is still one of the most striking and powerful emblems of the empire. The royalty, then, becomes a nation treasure themselves. Many British icons have some connection to the monarchy, and an abolition of the system today would be really traumatic to the people, the government, and of course the royal family themselves.

It would be best for monarchic nations to slowly wane their royal families off of tax money. Over the course of several decades, the Crown would be given less and less state funds. Does Queen Elizabeth, being one of the richest human beings on the planet, really forty million pounds a year in income? If the family would instead open private museums, charge admission to view their art collections, or offer tours of their lands, they'd earn as much or more, and help the state by increasing domestic tourism. Most importantly, the government would no longer need to pay for the upkeep of a single family. Monarchies have very deep ties to the cultures of their nations, and these ties shouldn't be severed. Instead, regimes must take the initiative to modernize themselves by abolishing royal expenditures and setting their prime ministers or presidents as heads of state, not monarchs.

Ugh. I really didn't want to get involved in this debate, but goddamn that post was so stupid it needs to be smacked.

"If the peoples' taxes pay for a single family's upkeep, millions of dollars are being wasted monthly that could be used for more important issues, like education, defense, or internal improvements. "

First point: Millions of dollars are not being wasted. All of the money spent on the queen would be spent even if there was a president. Why? Because the Queen gets money for a variety of reasons. She is the head of state. She does not sit on her ass all day and eat finger sandwiches. She's flying to different nations representing Britain, acting as a head of state would, engaging in improving diplomactic relations and speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. This would not change if there was a President. The manner in which things happened may, but the money would still all need to be spent.

Why? Because the money given to the Queen isn't given to her just so she can have money. It's not just a salary. It's monies given to maintain Crown estates (like Buckingham Palace) which would require maintanence and staff even without a queen and to offset the money spend in performing her duties as Queen such as performing diplomatic missions to other nations.


"The very existence of a hierarchical monarchy leads to increased deference and reduced social mobility."

Allow me to introduce you to Tony Blair the son of an illegitimate boy of two actors who was raised by a shipyard worker.

Opposite to him, allow me to introduce George Bush, heir to the Bush political dynasty, fourth cousin (four times removed) to James Garfield and (ten times removed) to George Washington. And that's not even the beginning lol. It's just that the political dynastic ties in the United States aren't flaunted through title and pomp.

Now allow me to dispel a little illusion America loves. Just because you have or do not have a monarchy or aristocracy has absolutely no influence upon whether or not there is social mobility within your nation. The upper class are going to be an exclusive, extremely xenophobic group whether you call them Mr. Walton or Sir Marlborough. The poor are always going to get the short end of the stick and if, by some God-given chance they should rise above the circumstances, defy the odds and make more than an average income for themselves, they will be in a strong minority of people. Right now the conditions of wealth within America are at an all-time low with regards to the distribution of wealth with the people who are rich maintaining ludicris control over the amount of money in the nation. And the divide between them is still widening ever faster. This is a completely separate issue which is utterly naive to believe is tied up to whether or not someone has title to their name and an ancient castle somewhere.

"On the flipside, many members of the royalty could find it completely fine to do nothing that helps society." This is an assumption without any basis.

"While of course very many aristocrats are or have been great philanthropists, the vast, vast majority of noblepersons throughout human history have done little more than live off of the people and give nothing back." I am not going to bloody beat into your head how much pilanthropy the Royal family does.


"Although Dovahkiin pointed out that House of Windsor earns a profit for the United Kingdom through the lease of land owned by the family, that's a very indirect effect of monarchy. " No, this is not indirect. It is direct, which means proceeding in a direct line. Why? Because the Crown Estate is a statutory corporation which generates revenue for the Treasury every year. Indirect revenue would be the money made via tourism because you can't actually trace where it goes or how it's directly spent, but it all goes into the economy and then is taxed later.

"If not for the aristocratic system, the family would likely not own the land." I don't even know what the hell this is supposed to mean. "If not for the capitalist system, businessmen would likely not own the land." It's such a general statement without any actual substance to it.


I'm not even going to address the last paragraph because it is uneducated and so lacking in anything of value it would be a waste of my time.

First point: Millions of dollars are not being wasted. All of the money spent on the queen would be spent even if there was a president. Why? Because the Queen gets money for a variety of reasons. She is the head of state. She does not sit on her ass all day and eat finger sandwiches. She's flying to different nations representing Britain, acting as a head of state would, engaging in improving diplomactic relations and speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. This would not change if there was a President. The manner in which things happened may, but the money would still all need to be spent.

Arguable. In systems with a Figurehead president there is far less opinion that the individual embodies the nation. As such, it's very possible that the number of international travels the President takes on behalf of the state would be less than the Monarch. Further, it is very possible for Presidents to cut back on unnecessary extravagance and cultivate an "everyman" image, something that we don't generally see Monarchs doing. Further, Monarchs and Royals engage in frivolities at the expense of the taxpayer that we don't see on the account of elected officials. I highly doubt the state would have funded Dubya's wedding if he had gotten married during his tenure.

"If not for the aristocratic system, the family would likely not own the land." I don't even know what the hell this is supposed to mean.

It's supposed to mean that without a bloody history of repression, unaccountable government, and embezzlement that the monarchy wouldn't be in possession of such vast tracts of land and properties and would in fact be a family like any other.

I cannot account for all royal families, but wiki says: "The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £230.9 million, as at 31 March 2011."

Further, Monarchs and Royals engage in frivolities at the expense of the taxpayer that we don't see on the account of elected officials.

https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_nf=1...w=1152&bih=747 lol yeah.

It's supposed to mean that without a bloody history of repression of their workers, unaccountable business, and embezzlement that the Walton family wouldn't be in possession of such vast tracts of land and properties and would in fact be a family like any other.

Again, show me how this is different. How is it different from wealthy people in the South who's families made money on the bloody backs of slaves? How is it different from any other businessman, entrepreneur or land-owner? Because it goes back farther in history? Because it's inheritable tracts of land? And even if it is different, why does that matter today? Are you really going to pin the crimes of Cromwell on Elizabeth the II? Are you going to place hundreds of years of repression of the Irish or Scots on her when she had nothing to do with it? Why is this relevant?

I cannot account for all royal families, but wiki says: "The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £230.9 million, as at 31 March 2011."

Point?

https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_nf=1...w=1152&bih=747 lol yeah.

And if elected officials do stupid things like that, they can and should be held accountable, which a monarch can't be.

Again, show me how this is different. How is it different from wealthy people in the South who's families made money on the bloody backs of slaves? How is it different from any other businessman, entrepreneur or land-owner? Because it goes back farther in history? Because it's inheritable tracts of land? And even if it is different, why does that matter today? Are you really going to pin the crimes of Cromwell on Elizabeth the II? Are you going to place hundreds of years of repression of the Irish or Scots on her when she had nothing to do with it? Why is this relevant?

It's not different than families who have vast wealth based on slavery.

It is, however, vastly different from capitalist business. Firstly, no one makes you work. Secondly, it's not as if a business owner has the ability to arbitrarily control every aspect of your life. Thirdly, business thrives and profits through the fair exchange of good/services for money.

As far as I know, Cromwell is not one of Elizabeth's ancestors.

I'm not going to lay blame and expect reparations. However, if you wish to claim that the monarchy is a net contributor to the nation, it is highly relevant that we consider where exactly that wealth has originated.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Point?

I think the point is that the Crown Estate brings in a lot of money for the treasury. £230 million may not be much compared to what the government fritters away on useless schemes (for example, renovating the entire Nimrod fleet and then scrapping them all a few weeks later)

And if elected officials do stupid things like that, they can and should be held accountable, which a monarch can't be.

English Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Monarchs become unpopular, it can be far more painful for them than if an elected politician becomes unpopular. Monarchs tend to be removed through their death, presidents simply voted out. It is vitally imperative for monarchs to maintain the support for the people, and that is something the House of Windsor is very good at. King George V even refused to grant Tsar Nicholas II asylum in Britain for fear it would provoke the Socialists in Britain to rise against him.

It's not different than families who have vast wealth based on slavery.

It is, however, vastly different from capitalist business. Firstly, no one makes you work. Secondly, it's not as if a business owner has the ability to arbitrarily control every aspect of your life. Thirdly, business thrives and profits through the fair exchange of good/services for money.

As far as I know, Cromwell is not one of Elizabeth's ancestors.

I'm not going to lay blame and expect reparations. However, if you wish to claim that the monarchy is a net contributor to the nation, it is highly relevant that we consider where exactly that wealth has originated.

I think Mike's point was you cannot blame current generations for events that happened several hundred years ago.

The Crown Estate isn't actually property of the Monarch, but property of the Monarchy. It's a technical distinction, but it's like the difference between your car, and the company car you get to drive. Balmoral belongs to Elizabeth Windsor, and would do even should the Monarchy be abolished. The Crown Estates belong to the Queen in her role as Queen alone, and if the Monarchy were abolished, they would become property of the British state. The British government would not lose a penny of the money from the Crown Estates if the Monarchy were abolished, regardless of what that horrendously inaccurate video on YouTube with the chirpy American will tell you.

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

Although I believe democracy is better, remember what happened to the Weimar Republic? Sometimes, the people elect the wrong person, and end up being ruled by a Nazi dictator.

Or, on the other hand, people can elect someone for his silly hair and daft voice. A la Boris Johnson. Bad decisions can be/frequently are made in democracies.

(For anyone who doesn't know, Boris Johnson is the mayor of London, and an absolute moron. There can be no arguing here.)

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

Although I believe democracy is better, remember what happened to the Weimar Republic? Sometimes, the people elect the wrong person, and end up being ruled by a Nazi dictator.

Hitler was not elected by the people; he was appointed as Chancellor by the German President Paul von Hindenburg.


As for my views on monarchy; I am fundamentally opposed to them having any power whatsoever. Even the most insignificant political power granted to an unelected, hereditary monarch is a subversion of the entire democratic system.

There is also the problem in that a monarch cannot be removed from office, at least not easily. With an elected official, you can impeach them, or subject them to a recall vote, while with a monarch the most you can really do is try to put on enough pressure to force them to abdicate. When you have a really ♥♥♥♥ty monarch, this can be a bit of a problem, as seen in Tsarist Russia. While we're talking about Russia, they're a prime example of how the idea of a monarch always acting in the country's best interest is laughable; under the tsars, the commoners of Russia were among the poorest people in Europe, subjected to frequent famines and were bound by a system that was essentially feudalism.

Now, monarchs as figureheads? So long as they do not receive a penny of taxpayer money and, again, have absolutely no power, I don't really see a problem with having them around. I don't support it, but as long as all they do is act as a symbol and attract tourist money, I don't oppose it either.

Wel here is where the what ifs come. Not all monarchy is bad and some replucism is bad. I saw from the poll that it was mostly republic and most likly they are Americans becuase they are more use to the system so I can give you millions of facts why monasrchy is good or bad same with the republic.

Originally Posted by Melody of Fantasy

Wel here is where the what ifs come. Not all monarchy is bad and some replucism is bad. I saw from the poll that it was mostly republic and most likly they are Americans becuase they are more use to the system so I can give you millions of facts why monasrchy is good or bad same with the republic.

That is what I have expected. Since most ZU members are American, which is founded on republicanism, it does not surprise me that republicanism is popular. Among those of the Commonwealth, support between the monarchy and the republic is quite spilt. There have been good arguments on both sides so far.

Originally Posted by Nen desharu

That is what I have expected. Since most ZU members are American, which is founded on republicanism, it does not surprise me that republicanism is popular. Among those of the Commonwealth, support between the monarchy and the republic is quite spilt. There have been good arguments on both sides so far.

I see what you meant by good arguments. They are both good ideas but just can be twisted and misconsepted.

Originally Posted by Silver

There is also the problem in that a monarch cannot be removed from office, at least not easily. With an elected official, you can impeach them, or subject them to a recall vote, while with a monarch the most you can really do is try to put on enough pressure to force them to abdicate. When you have a really ♥♥♥♥ty monarch, this can be a bit of a problem, as seen in Tsarist Russia. While we're talking about Russia, they're a prime example of how the idea of a monarch always acting in the country's best interest is laughable; under the tsars, the commoners of Russia were among the poorest people in Europe, subjected to frequent famines and were bound by a system that was essentially feudalism.

Can this argument even be applied to any monarch in the developed world (i.e. how much of a "problem" is it even?)? I'm not aware of many "♥♥♥♥ty" monarchs, especially in places where elected officials supposedly have more power.

Originally Posted by Double A

Can this argument be applied to any monarch in the developed world? I'm not aware of many "♥♥♥♥ty" monarchs, especially in places where elected officials supposedly have more power.

It can also be applied to many dictators who had a great deal of public support at the beginning of their reign.


Regarding Hitler; while he was not directly elected as Chancellor, he was given the position by Hindenburg due to the fact his party was the largest in the Reichstag. His party had a huge amount of public support, so one cannot say democracy was not to blame for the rise of Hitler. Had the Nazi party not been so popular, and had not received so many votes, Hitler would not have been given office.

For the record, Hindenburg hated Hitler. He didn't wake up one morning and decide to give the Chancellorship to one of his pals. He wanted to shut Hitler and his cronies up and make them stop causing trouble, and he though giving Hitler and several other leading Nazis top governmental positions he would be able to control him. Remember Franz von Papen (an ally of Hindenburg) was given the position of Vice Chancellor in an effort to be a moderating power on Hitler.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

It can also be applied to many dictators who had a great deal of public support at the beginning of their reign.

Both sytems are great but it only really depends on the person.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

It can also be applied to many dictators who had a great deal of public support at the beginning of their reign.

It can, but it's hardly related to the notion of being able to vote for/vote out a leader.