Do you support monarchies and why? This is from the POV of my country's monarchy, but everyone else's is also welcome.
In principle, no. But that said the current members of the British Monarchy seem to be decent people that seem to do a lot of good with their influence.
Yes, I think they can be bennificial, I live in the Uk and the monarchy brings tons of tourism and the history behind it can be really interesting. Although I may be biased as I got a day off school due to the wedding last year.
In my opinion, monarchies are at worst oppressive (gulf Arab states esp. Saudi Arabia, and at best unnecessary (UK, Spain, denmark etc)..
I much prefer the monarchy vs lets say democracy honestly. I am born in the UK, though i live in the US now for work, democratic politics are horrible, no one wins. Even though parliament really holds the power in uk unless people have lived in several types of governments though, they have no right in my opinion to say one is better than the other.
Constitutional monarchies are a perfectly acceptable form of government, and are, imo, usually better than republics. Also, monarchies, at least European ones, are cool.
Just because I'm a benevolent monarch doesn't mean my successor will be. He could be corrupt, he could be inept. Plus, monarchies have a problem when that successor is uncertain, and civil war could break out over who the rightful successor should be. Having the monarchy as a symbol of the State, or as a tourist attraction has its benefits, bringing in money and a sense of nationalism. I still would prefer a republic, though. I believe our leaders should be decided by us, not by chance. Of course, republics have their drawbacks- corruption and ineptitude still abound, and our elected officials may spend too much time bickering to actually do something, but in a republic we still have the authority to oust them without violence. I have to wonder, though, what use there is for a constitutional monarchy. If the king is checked by elected officials, why not just leave the government up to the elected officials and leave the king out of it?
They're scumbags who have earned their positions and immense wealth by shooting through the vagina of the right person at right time or by marrying such a person. Not only that, but their family holds the crown, in the first place, because their ancestors were the most murderous deceitful rapists of all the noblemen in their specific area. What a legacy! On the wedding day of Prince William and the now Duchess of Cambridge *spits on floor*, I traveled to London and protested. I gave out leaflets, I spoke on a megaphone, I held up signs, I spoke to police and I spoke to ordinary people (some who agreed with me but most who disagreed with me). So yeah, I dont like them and I voted No.
There's hardly a word of Common Sense by Thomas Paine that doesn't remain as true today as it did in 1776. Why should anyone, however nice a person they are, get a privilege from the state because of who their parents were? It reinforces a sense of class stratification in society.
I support them as long as they have no power; they bring tourism and are a symbol of the nation and all, but I don't like the idea of hereditary power.
Personally I don't mind the presence of monarchies in general although in the way that politics function modern day, an absolute monachy is rather a dated system. Still, I'd support the presence of constitutional monarchies such as in the Commonwealth Realms, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Japan, etc, since in that system, as is widely known, the respective governments hold pretty much all of the political power in governing the country so that heads of government may be voted in and out while still leaving the countries with a constant head of state whose responsibilities lie in ultimately representing the country diplomatically and culturally. Something which I personally think is quite nice, while republics generally change their heads of state with every new president, in monarchies it's generally when the monarch dies or abdicates which can be a veeeery long time. Then again it also means that if they're a dick, it takes longer to get rid of them... they aren't often though, and when they are, well... that's how new republics are born! Also in many constitutional monarchies the monarch does hold final power over the government, though it is only very rarely used. Such as dissolving a corrupted or otherwise incapable government and/or instating someone to govern the country until the matter can be properly sorted, they can also choose not to give a law or a piece of legislation royal assent (though once again that is usually due to being advised by other parts of the government), etc. So the monarch can sort of act like a back-up should a government fail at its job. Basicly I think it's kinda mad, traditional and complicated, but in its modern position it does seem to be quite coherent. (Also bear in mind that I am talking about Monarchies in general, not all monarchs are selected by hereditary succession, in some modern and many past systems they were selected by other means)
Undecided. If they were good people, then I wouldn't care, but you know how politics tend to get... I prefer a true democratic system, which (in my opinion) the USA is not. But eh... I think it's all messed up in some way or another.
Yes, we have it in my country.. I honestly don't see the big problem, their main job is just representing the country anyway, they have NO POWER what so ever, all the power lies within the government. So yeah.. why change it? It's working out just fine
This. Of course I'm not thoroughly knowledgeable about other monarchy systems other than the one in UK (just because british monarchy seems to be the most popular media choice of representation of monarchy), but it just seems kind of wasteful and unnecessary and hierarchical all based on ancient irrelevant traditions and views. Whatever. THen again, countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria is practically oppressive monarchy in a way.
As long as there a figurehead and have no power then Yes, but if they have it then no, Monarchy are good for tourism and days off that's it.
Monarchy is a massive term -- ranging from absolute monarchs to figurehead monarchs. I am a big supporter of British Westminster-style constitutional-monarchs, like in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc. Monarchs that reign but don't rule and have very few powers that can only be used in emergencies. I am not too familiar with Scandinavian monarchies but I believe they are pretty similar in many respects. I think the British Westminster governance system, while not perfect, is probably the best in the world. I think Canadian Constitutional Scholar David E. Smith said it best when he said; Elizabeth II is like a constitutional fire-extinguisher; she's bright and flashy so as to attract attention and make it known that she is The Queen; but rarely does she ever need to use her powers to put out a fire. I also think having a Constitutional Monarch is much better than an elected Head of State, as elected Heads of State often over-politicise the state. I might strongly disagree with what our Prime Minister is doing, but I can join with Liberals and Conservatives at national events led by our non-partisan Head of State.