Why do Europeans (and Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.) support monarchism?

Remove all ads!

While certainly some countries have very strong republican histories, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, others still cling to the trappings of unelected monarchs and aristocrats. Needless to say, these monarchs and aristocrats have very little real power, but the fact that they still exist at all is baffling. Even left-wing and libertarian groups that one would suspect to be opposed to monarchy, are okay with these unelected heads of state for the most part.

Oddly enough, some European countries even reverted from republics to monarchies. Take for instance the Netherlands, which was a federal republic since it's founding in the 16th century and remained that way well into the early 19th century. Yet this federal republic was later replaced with a unitary, centralized republic, and after that with a monarchy under French control. Yet even after the end of the French Empire, the Netherlands didn't return to republicanism.

In Canada throughout 18th and 19th centuries there were strong movements to have Upper and Lower Canada join the United States and republican states. A series of revolutions and civil wars were even fought by the Canadian people (and sympathetic Americans) to overthrow the British imperialists in the Canadian colonies. Yet after the British imperialists violently put down the revolution and executed political dissidents, the movement seemed to slow down a bit. Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?

It's often said, and rightly so, that the United States is the first 'new' country. We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples. The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. Many have even pointed out that the reason the European Union is allowed to exist in it's current form, is because the idea of being ruled by unelected elites is a fundamental part of their cultures.

The question I pose to you is this, why do you think monarchism remains popular in first-world, democratic countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and others? If you live in a monarchic state, do you support the monarchy?

 

Do you really think the monarchys have any power?

It's about tourism revenue and foreign relations in the most part. Not to mention the monarchy is a huge part of our national history and heritage, which is another thing I guess Yanks would never really understand. Still, they don't actually have any pull anymore. What century are you in, like the 1800's?

 

That and not wanting the hassle of changing the entire legal system. I'm personally indifferent about Aus becoming a republic, I look at the republics around the world and it's a mixed bag, we've modified the Queen's legal system to suit our needs, while some areas still need work (Queensland needs a senate), overall it works very well, plus compulsory voting is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I don't understand the confusion. Very few Monarchies have any power, and they are mainly there for tradition. Show me a female American who at one point didn't dream of being a princess. There were probably more Americans who followed Princess Di and now Princess Kate then Englishmen. The amount of film and literature based on royalty should show how important it is to our culture. All of the games we love to play here at SP are based on feudal systems, correct?

 

In terms of principle, I'd like to see the whole Monarchy punted out of Canada, but the effort spent doing so would be better spent on other matters -- poverty, disease, etc. We have a fully functioning democracy and enjoy freedoms coupled with a high standard of living. It's not causing us any strain, so in terms of practicality, it's a non issue.

I'd bet the average Canadian doesn't give a rat's hind end about the monarchy, and those that say they do view the Royals as being on par with the Kardashians -- rich, dippy people who are watched for entertainment and no other reason.

 

Wait - the royals have gigantic bosoms and bottoms?

 

Most people who ever think about it properly are against the monarchy here but as we all know, most people never think properly. The monarchy do no real harm it is just wrong on principle and I kinda pity the people born into it. People like the razzle dazzle royalty brings so even though there is a majority in the Swedish parliament (and I think in many other monarchies) for going Republic no politician dare force the issue out of fear of all the nice old ladies following the royal family from everywhere.

 

Personally I see monarchy as impossible to defend from a moral or philosophical point of view if you support any sort of democracy and dislike the concept of aristocracy. Dismantling all monarchies should be the long term goal and in all honesty I think it will happen sooner or later. I think the nostalgia keeps them alive so far but eventually they will be seen as completely useless especially when the monarchy becomes too embarrassing when the inbred buffoons make idiots of themselves and their country abroad.

I don't buy the entire "monarchy earns more money than it costs!" argument since I think the calculations have been made and skewed by pro monarchy supporters. Statistics can be used to prove almost anything if you use the right variables and ignore others. Getting rid of the outdated institution is not equal to erasing the last few thousands of years of history.

EDIT: This is just what I think. I really don't care enough about the subject to research it extensively enough to find out how it's calculated. It's up to those who actually want to get rid of their royalty or keep it to argue the point.

To be fair though it's not that big of a deal since the monarchy is essentially powerless but living in a republic myself I'm certainly glad we don't have a constitutional monarchy. I don't respect any individual because of their high birth if anything it gives me higher contempt for them since they have no idea how normal people live their lives and have lived in a bubble their whole lives.

 

I'm not overly positive about the effects of monarchy, but this is the kind of thread where if you're not opposed to it, then you effectively support it. Holland is having a change of monarch soon: The Queen is abdicating to let her son be King on the 30th (Queen's Day celebration). I'm living in China, so I wouldn't have known atall if my mom hadn't told me.
I think shaking off the chains of monarchic dictatorship is an issue that was resolved in western nations in different ways over 100 years ago. It's no longer a relevant issue, save purely ideological standpoints.

Monarchies do cost money. The media does present a counterargument, that a royal head of state is much more effective during business negotiations than just a businessman in a suit. People love dealing with a monarch, and feel honored/gratified that business is done during a royal visit no less. I don't know if this is true, but the media in Holland claims that the revenue earned for the country more than makes up for the monarcy's expense. It's quite possible - Holland has always been strong in trade, and our Queen does do her 'work' effectively.

The Queen's point of view is intended to reflect the opinion of the nation, and I was quite charmed to hear her make subtle messages of tolerance in the past. Most staunch monarchists also tend to be isolationist or even bigoted, so this message probably didn't sit well with her strongest supporters. Despite this, she can say what she should without having to pander to voters.

I feel that Americans especially tend to overvalue the relevance of their democracy. My friend studied in Pittsburgh, and what he wrote in his blog was a good summary.
There are only 2 political parties with any chance of leading the country in the USA, and usually the UK too. Coalitions are mandatory in Holland, because no party ever secures over 50% of the vote. It does mean that parties can only hope to compromise and execute a watered-down version of their goal, but at least it better reflects what people in the country want. With only 2 possible parties, it's too easy for lobbyists to simply bribe both parties, to get what they want anyway.

But it gets worse: the GOP/Republicans are losing big time, because their hyper-conservative ideologies don't have nearly enough support. And they don't want to tone it down, either. They'll improve their 'messaging' instead
If only ONE party has a realistic hope of winning the election, how can you call it democracy anymore? That was what my friend thought when he saw the elections last year.

Here in China, one good thing about the Communist dictatorship, is that they don't have to pander to an audience during elections. That means there's much less populism, like fueling an anti-immigration sentiment:
"Are you disheartened?
Foreigners are to blame.
Vote [insert] party,
and everything stays the same!"

They do listen to people's needs, and there is a lot of real improvement in the country. Sure, there's lots of bad things, but I find it hard to complain. The income tax rate in China is about 7%, and only the biggest earners pay it. In fact, my boss helps me avoid paying the tax, despite being the mayor's nephew.

---------- Added 4 hours, 7 minutes and 4 seconds later... ----------

In Thailand, the king has a demigod status, reflecting all that is virtuous in the Thai people. Most Thai are very loyalist, and do not look kindly to any criticism of their monarch.
To a much lesser extent, monarchs in most countries are meant to reflect the conscience of the people. A clear figurehead representing the values that people in the nation *ought to* hold dear. That's why I was so charmed by the Queen's messages of tolerance in the past: Although Holland has been brooding up a xenophobic attitude towards new immigrants for decades now (yay political populism. hate the foreigner is so brave and original), the Queen is saying that people should live together with peace, patience, and acceptance of other's differences. Opponents have been spreading messages that 'integration has failed' and praise assimilation (denying your foreign heritage) as the only course for the future. It's another 'failed' path before it even starts, because it fails to respect other citizens.
A monarch is a figurehead nowadays, but that is far from a meaningless title. It means a lot. Republics miss out on having a so-called 'paragon of virtue'.

 

When Franco died the conservative fascists turned to King Carlos to be their new leader and iron fist to rule Spain. He refused and instead tricked the conservatives and was integral into turning fascist Spain into a democracy where he has no power at all. King Carlos of Spain is one European monarch I highly respect.

 

Because:
A) the monarchy has no actual authority
B) some democratic governments are no more effective and by bogged down in arguments rather than actually governing anything
C) it doesn't really impact us much on a day to day basis anyway

 

I was in Thailand in 2005, shortly after the tsunami hit. The leader was a guy called Thaksin Shinawatra, elected president under their king Bhumibol Adulyadej. He was popular, because he gave subsidies to poor countryside farmers who needed it badly. But things went badly because of the kings meddling:

The king got himself involved in politics, though, which he really shouldn't have. Accusing Thaksin of conspiring with evil Communists (are they still living in the 50s?! Hitler used almost the same excuse) to overthrow the monarchy and take absolute control of the government. No evidence was ever produced. They told the military that it serves the king, not the government, and shortly after a bloodless coup ended Thaksin's rule and forced him to flee the country. The staged yellow shirt rebellion.

Then the peasants (red shirts, UDD) rebelled a while later, laying siege to all of Bangkok. It was beaten down forcefully. Thaksin was found guilty of founding the UDD movement in his absence, and of having 'abnormal wealth', so 46 billion of his frozen assets were siezed and his passport revoked. When will China and the USA pass legislation making 'abnormal wealth' a crime?

 

Thakshin Shinawatra.... Why do I know that name. Didn't he take over a football club or something?

 

Generally speaking, in Canada monarchists tend to be older (i.e. mid 60's and older. Definitely not 53 ). The younger people are, the less they care about the monarchy. Now that's a very broad statement, and there are obviously many exceptions, including the degree to which people care one way or the other. Right now, there is no real push to abolish the monarchy in Canada (even though it is symbolic only), but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes over the next decade or two as the strong supporters die off.

 

I voted "European (under Monarchy): I support monarchism."

"I support monarchism" meaning I support the Dutch monarchy as it is now: A kind and concerned family with no real political power. Their most important "job" is their unifying role, at which they succeed. They are genuinely concerned when disaster strikes and need not fear the possible slander of ulterior motives that elected politicians probably have to deal with.
Also, when you have a regnant for about 30 years* (as opposed to an elected person every 4 or maybe 8 years), you learn to love him/her, making them even more suitable for the unifying role. I think that's why popular monarchies stay popular.

Our southern neighbours were having some troubles with their crown prince, though. I'm interested how popular Belgium's monarchy is and how they'd answer this question.

Edit:
*We have a tradition in the Netherlands that the queen (or king) abdicates when she thinks the time is right, which is different to, say, the English monarchy.

 

The world being ruled by giant assess is already a reality...

 

When I was young, I was a romantic and supported the monarchy out of a love for tradition and history. As I got older I lost that romantic streak with regards to the monarchy. The idea that someone has the right to govern me merely because of his/her birth is morally repugnant.

That said, I think a lot of Canadians, regardless of age, will not ever want to go through the hassle and expense of fully ditching the British Monarchy. As I said before, there are lots of other issues facing us that take priority.

 

Our oath of allegiance (though no one does it anymore unless they are becoming a citizen) is to the Queen. That symbolic bowing down before an inbred -- er, royal -- really grinds my gears. I have a great patriotic love for my country, but feel no love for the royals.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a radical. I don't want them beheaded or anything, and they can keep their money (though their landholdings upon which they do not actually reside should be confiscated and put to better use) and their attention from the Paparrazzi. Their opinions, however, don't mean <poop> to me.