-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Monarchy vs Republic
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Indeed. I chose monarchy too...but for another reason.
Italy is a monarchy de facto but not de jure. The President of the Republic replaced the monarch in 1946, after a referendum. But he's a monarch de facto because he lives in a royal palace, he has a royal-like appanage.
But at least Queen Elizabeth doesn't interfere with politics, she stays in her place. Unlike our President who doesn't hide his pro-EU views.
If we still had the monarchy, this would be our king
Speaking as a citizen of the United Kingdom I’d have to say I’d favour our constitutional monarchy over having a republic.
I support the monarchy as an institution but am not at all interested in the personal affairs or lives of the royals, in fact I couldn’t care less about them and I get annoyed with all the coverage they get, but then millions of people are interested in their personal affairs etc. so I suppose that’s fair enough.
Queen Elizabeth II has an enormous sense of duty – she literally believes herself to be chosen by God to be our monarch and acts with a selfless dignity and integrity. Imagine the kind of scoundrels we’d likely have as head of state if we had a republic – President Blair to name just one. President Blair. Can you imagine! I’d rather have the royals, thank you very much. Also, they are an integral part of our national brand.
I support the monarchy as an institution but am not at all interested in the personal affairs or lives of the royals, in fact I couldn’t care less about them and I get annoyed with all the coverage they get, but then millions of people are interested in their personal affairs etc. so I suppose that’s fair enough.
Queen Elizabeth II has an enormous sense of duty – she literally believes herself to be chosen by God to be our monarch and acts with a selfless dignity and integrity. Imagine the kind of scoundrels we’d likely have as head of state if we had a republic – President Blair to name just one. President Blair. Can you imagine! I’d rather have the royals, thank you very much. Also, they are an integral part of our national brand.
Indeed. We had a very prestigious royal family in charge but they were blamed for supporting fascism, even if the monarch was totally powerless when the Duce became dictator so he couldn't have stopped him.
It was the king who opened the doors to the Americans in 1943, to free Italy from Nazi-Fascism.
Although, the referendum decided the end of the monarchy. Besides king Humbert II was gay and didn't even do much to hide his male lovers.
Besides, it was rumored that his children were his wife's only and not his own...since he looked very Mediterranean and dark-haired whereas his children were incredibly blonde and blue-eyed.
To the extent that a country is a monarchy, it is not a democracy. I value democracy, therefore I do not want monarchy.
Our monarchy is largely symbolic, but the symbolism is awful to the point of being offensive. It's illegal for our head of state to be Catholic. Monarchis like to talk about "tradition" and "history", but it's practically impossible for anyone from 3 of our 4 founding peoples (British, French, First Nations, Métis) to ever become head of state.
Fun fact: Canada has never had a head of state who has actually lived in this country. We've never had a head of state who has sworn allegiance to this country above all other nations.
It's all garbage. Anyone who likes Elizabeth should be able to vote for her in a free and fair election, should she choose to run and meet the normal requirements (e.g. become a legitimate citizen of Canada and make this country her home).
So on the whole, I guess you could say I lean republican.
This Canadian would very much appreciate it if our head of state wasn't the "integral part" of some other country's "national brand" and instead had a head of state who was a Canadian and expressed Canadian values... such as democracy and equality.
Our monarchy is largely symbolic, but the symbolism is awful to the point of being offensive. It's illegal for our head of state to be Catholic. Monarchis like to talk about "tradition" and "history", but it's practically impossible for anyone from 3 of our 4 founding peoples (British, French, First Nations, Métis) to ever become head of state.
Fun fact: Canada has never had a head of state who has actually lived in this country. We've never had a head of state who has sworn allegiance to this country above all other nations.
It's all garbage. Anyone who likes Elizabeth should be able to vote for her in a free and fair election, should she choose to run and meet the normal requirements (e.g. become a legitimate citizen of Canada and make this country her home).
So on the whole, I guess you could say I lean republican.
@Estro Felino - I'm appreciating the irony of voting on whether we support monarchy. The whole point of monarchy is that it isn't up to us.
If he's unacceptable as a president, why was he acceptable as a prime minister?
Earthling
David Henson
It's a forum poll, lighten up
I was actually chuckling as I typed that post. I should have added smileys.It's a forum poll, lighten up
Indeed...if someone has to live in a luxurious royal palace...let prestigious dynasties live there...not cats and dogs....
The Head of Government is fundamentally different from The Head of State: The political theorist Bagehot said in the nineteenth century that in the British constitution there were "dignified" elements of the state (e.g. the crown and the monarch) and "efficient" elements of the state (e.g. the cabinet, the PM, government departments).
Granted, Tony Blair was an efficient Head of Government but he lacks the dignity to be Head of State. All that Iraq stuff has seen to that...
I'd say a Head of State need to be a different type of person than the Head of Government.
Altfish
Veteran Member
No, I'd rather kick out Liz, Phil and the other hanger's on and settle for a republic.
Personally, I prefer to have a dignified prime minister to an undignified one. I certainly don't think a "scoundrel" should be prime minister. Why do you?
Me too, and I would say that it's possible to be both dignified and efficient - but I'd argue that normally the two don't coincide as to succeed in the often dirty business of politics one needs to be necessarily undignified
Another question:
If you think that dignity is essential to a head of state, why would you support a system where a person's level of dignity is not considered at all in the choice of a head of state?
You guys are so lucky that your Head of State lives beyond the ocean. At least she doesn't interfere with the Prime Minister's decisions....
Good point. Let's look at Prince Charles, the next in line. He is widely considered to be unsuitable for the job and the notion that the crown should skip him and land on William's head is quite a common one. Consider his meddling in public affairs. This makes him look bad and is bad for the monarchy
Also, in the days immediately after the death of Diana the monarchy was in crisis and there was even talk of it being game over for it
Also, Queen Victoria pretty much withdrew from the role after the death of her Albert - which strengthen republican sentiments throughout the nation.
I'd say that when a monarchy fails to maintain a state of dignity then it will inevitably enter a state of crisis and may even fail - I'd say a monarchy has to be dignified or else it will cease to be. Queen Elizabeth II has done a good job at keeping up the dignity.