Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Monarchies

Thread: Purgatory: Monarchies Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000904

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

In Ecclesiantics, PD said:

quote:

I am an instinctive monarchist, and my knowledge of history tells me that republics eventually collapse under their own weight, 300 years being about the usual life span.

How many monarchies have lasted much longer than that? Genuine question. (And don't say the UK, because it's only existed for just over 300 years and might not for much longer - we've already lost Ireland, or most of it.)

As a non-historian, ISTM that the main difference is not so much 'republican' vs. 'monarchist' (if you mean constitutional monarchist) but between large, all-encompassing states like the US and (on a smaller scale of course) the UK, and smaller more homogenous states like, potentially, Scotland, Catalunya etc. None of the latter are proposing total independence like opting out of the EU, and it's a big question how any government can be independent of international capitalism anyway.

But while there is a big difference between dictatorships and democracies, there doesn't seem much between a republic like France or Germany and a monarchy like Britain or the Netherlands.

I'd just like to see an end to the flummery, personally, but I can't get too worked up about it one way or another.

[ 28. January 2013, 23:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Neither can I. I suspect that, like others, I think HM the Queen does a Jolly Good Job (though she is nowhere near as perfect as some newspapers would like us to believe...).

The members of the Royal Family, though, sometimes seem to be as dysfunctional as most other 'normal' families in the UK, and unworthy (IMHO) of the adulation and air-time accorded them. I no longer attend Sunday BCP Matins, partly (though not entirely) because of the unctuous State Prayers....

Let the whole lot of them be made to go out to work, pay taxes etc. like the rest of us, and let us have the media filled with Proper News!

Ian J.

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In Ecclesiantics, PD said:

quote:

I am an instinctive monarchist, and my knowledge of history tells me that republics eventually collapse under their own weight, 300 years being about the usual life span.
How many monarchies have lasted much longer than that? Genuine question.

Well, Denmark is recorded as a monarchy as early as 950 AD, and has been one continuously ever since, that is for well over a thousand years.

I am what I suppose you might call a lukewarm monarchist myself.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

To stick to England and Great Britain for a moment (mainly because I don't know much about Danish history)--looking at the bigger picture, there have been at least six monarchies (if you distinguish them the way the French do Republics, by significant constitutional shifts):

[LIST] [*]1. Danish-Saxon (Canute-Harold) [*]2. Norman (William I-Stephen) [*]3. Early Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry II-John) [*]4. Late Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry III-Richard II) [*]5. Lancastrian-Yorkist (HenryIV-Richard III) [*]6. Tudor/Stuart (Henry VII-James II)

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

[Trying again after running afoul of the edit window]

To stick to England and Great Britain for a moment (mainly because I don't know much about Danish history)--looking at the bigger picture, there have been at least seven monarchies, possibly more (if you distinguish them the way the French do Republics, by significant constitutional shifts):

1. Danish-Saxon (Canute-Harold)
2. Norman (William I-Stephen)
3. Early Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry II-John)
4. Late Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry III-Richard II)
5. Lancastrian-Yorkist (Henry IV-Richard III)
6. Tudor/Stuart (Henry VII-James II)
7. Modern Constitutionalist (William & Mary-present)

They often but not always coincide with dynastic transitions--the current monarchy obviously begins with the Revolution of 1688. But I would venture to suggest that the stability of the current monarchy (far more stable than any of the others, none of which lasted close to 300 years) is due to the fact that it has increasingly come to approximate a Republic with a hereditary president. Liz II is not functionally a monarch in any sense that her premodern ancestors would recognize, or even her namesake. As one of my primary school teachers (a Glaswegian who proudly identified as a Liberal back in the days when kindest thing you could call the Liberal Party was "irrelevant"), she's England's highest-paid civil servant. She isn't even really sovereign in her own person any more, but a vehicle for the true sovereignty that belongs to the people. If the people decided to abolish the monarchy, she might argue that it was unwise, but I can't imagine her arguing that they didn't have a right to do it.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
How many monarchies have lasted much longer than that? Genuine question. (And don't say the UK, because it's only existed for just over 300 years and might not for much longer - we've already lost Ireland, or most of it.)

The Shah of Iran enjoyed a glorious reign of about 26 years after being divinely placed on the throne by a bunch of oil executives and Anglo-American spies.

And I can say that in Korea, almost nobody wants to see a return to the monarchy that was trashed by the Japanese before they annexed the peninsula. It's not so much that people dislike the monarchs(in fact, nationalist rhetoric is awash in praise of certain monarchs), just that they're not seen as particularly relevant to anything these days.

That said, as a Canadian, I consider myself to be a monarchist by default. I just don't see that abolition would accomplish anything that would justify all the paperwork required(eg. debating and concocting a new system, re-writing statutes, etc).

[ 21. October 2012, 23:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But while there is a big difference between dictatorships and democracies, there doesn't seem much between a republic like France or Germany and a monarchy like Britain or the Netherlands

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Liz II is not functionally a monarch in any sense that her premodern ancestors would recognize, or even her namesake.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And I can say that in Korea, almost nobody wants to see a return to the monarchy that was trashed by the Japanese before they annexed the peninsula.

One could argue that North Korea is functionally an hereditary monarchy, having recently completed its second inter-generational transfer of power within the Kim family (dynasty?). In fact, given the nepotistic mode of succession that seems to be preferred in a lot of cases we'd classify as dictatorships (e.g. Syria, Cuba, North Korea) I'd argue that the line between the two often a matter of taste. Is there a significant way in which Elizabeth II of England or Abdullah II of Jordan are monarchs while Bashar al Assad of Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea are not?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
One could argue that North Korea is functionally an hereditary monarchy, having recently completed its second inter-generational transfer of power within the Kim family (dynasty?).

Indeed. I am in the habit, common among Koreans themselves, of referring to the country as Korea, even when clearly talking about only the South.

As for example...

And you're right about North Korea's political system, and I would go even further, and say that North Korea is an old-style monarchy, in more ways than just the hereditary transfer of power. The ruling family has constructed a whole mythology around itself, complete with magical omens upon the birth of a heir apparent and whatnot.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The kings of Iraq didn't last long. Nor Egpyt. Or Romania or Bulgaria. Yugoslavia and Albania didn't survive their first generation as monarchies. Brazil and Mexico both briefly had emperors.

As did Germany, but they lasted 48 years. Though they were in a sense the successors to the Kingdom of Prussia which was all of 170 years old at unification. (And yes they were the successors to the Dukes of Brandenburg, who took over from the Dukes of Prussia, who lasted almost a century, and they were the successors of the last Grand Master of the Teutonic Order - but then everyone has ancestors and kings tend to have posh ones)

The Kingdom of Italy made it to 75 - with a sort of dynastic prehistory in Sardinia and Savoy - which had spent the previous few centuries as a kind of peripatetic monarchy, often eclipsed by various conquerors (including at least one republic) and by the time they had taken over Italy most of their original territory had been incorporated into France.

That seems to happen now and again. The Mogul Empire (lasted just over 300 years) was founded by Babur who had already lost two other kingdoms - one inherited, one he conquered himself. Monarchies move around. They merge and split. Try looking at a map of Germany between about the 15th and 18th centuries. The states are fractal. The closer you look the more there are.

Some kingdoms and empires seem to last a very long time but they disappear and come back again. China, obviously. No continuity between one dynasty and another. Ancient Egypt. Even ancient Babylon. Rome managed to be an Empire for almost 1500 years, but there were many dynasties and splits and shifts in territory. And by the end of it it ruled over almost none of the territories it had started with, spoke a different language, had a different religion. Not that stable!

Record holder for one dynasty is probably Japan, though the royal family didn't actually rule anything for large chunks of its history. The only European(ish) royal family that can compete with that is the Armenian/Georgian one which has a plausible case to have been both the direct successors and actual descendants of the dynasty that ruled there before the Roman Empire. They still exist as minor central European aristocracy somewhere, but they don't rule any kingdoms. But then between the Romans and the Turks and the Russians they didn't for most of their history.

Thais have been going for 800 years with one royal family. But then so had the Cambodians and Laotians and Vietnamese until they abolished them (with a little help from the French)

Of course it might be that stable political institutions, sort of by definition, change more slowly than unstable ones. And as most European nation states started off with monarchies the more stable ones just at random have been less likely to abolish them. So if it was true that monarchies have lasted longer than republics it might be an effect of their stability not a cause of it.

The way to be a stable monarchy in Europe these days seems to be not being too far from the North Sea. Except you can't count Belgium as stable, can you? Maybe you need an established Protestant church. There have been kings of Norway for a long time - though the current nation state of Norway is only just over a hundred years old. Became independent in 1905. For something like the sixth time.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But I would venture to suggest that the stability of the current monarchy (far more stable than any of the others, none of which lasted close to 300 years) is due to the fact that it has increasingly come to approximate a Republic with a hereditary president.

That's pretty much my own pet theory as well. England always was a constitutional monarchy. (As was Scotland, and so were most European monarchies in the late middle ages) In the early modern period European fashion shifted towards absolutism and the divine right of kings but that never really took hold here - the few kings that tried it got killed for it. And sometime between the Civil Wars and the early 19th century our consitution shifted to being de facto republican with the monarchy as a sort of figurehead rather than an ruler.

quote:

If the people decided to abolish the monarchy, she might argue that it was unwise, but I can't imagine her arguing that they didn't have a right to do it.

I doubt if Victoria would have either, or any of the kings since. And arguably not the Georges.

I'm really not a historian, but I think that even earlier than that many English jurists would have thought that Parliament had the legal right to decide who would be king, even if not to abolish the monarchy. That's clearly the case after 1688 but I'd guess that way of thinking goes back at least two centuries earlier.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

The Japanese Monarchy (I think they call the king an emperor, though it's not exactly an empire at the moment) has been around more or less for over a thousand years.

Of course, for most of that history, the emperor has been primarily a ceremonial role, which might help. The dynasties of the particular Shoguns tended to run for a few centuries each.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

In the democratic side of things, we've got the Icelandic Althingi, at 1,082 years. The Most Serene Republic of Venice made it to 1,100 years. Respectable even by monarchical standards.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Republicans in Canada (the handful of them) argue about selecting a Governor General in a democratic fashion. The Governor General in Canada has Rideau Hall, which is not big at all and the fancy bits are the public rooms. It's like living in a conference centre and public guest house, with your personal residence attached to it. That's how my cousin described it when she worked there on a few band gigs, the band being the Governor General's Foot Guards.

The Governor General also has a residence at La Citadelle de Quebec.

Governor's General terms are five years, just like a presidency in a parliamentary system.

Anybody who thinks more than a minute about change realizes the present system gives us a figurehead who does good public relations (the present GG is a former University president, the previous two were media personalities) and change would not really change anything, and cost more money.

For historic and folk-memory reasons, Canadians are probably the most monarchist people in the western world. Even in Quebec the Royal Family is popular, not least because the present Royals speak French. The Queen, Charles and William have all demonstrated their French skills in public speaking.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Even in Quebec the Royal Family is popular, not least because the present Royals speak French. The Queen, Charles and William have all demonstrated their French skills in public speaking.

Jacques Parizeau(for non-followers of Canadian politics, the most militant leader of the Quebec independence movement, and generally indifferent to the concerns of the anglo minority) is on record as saying he'd personally favour keeping the monarchy in the event of Quebec indpenendence.

Parizeau is British-educated, and cultivates a somewhat anglophile image, albeit filtered through a rather Hollywoodized idea of Britishness(he says "By Jove" when speaking English, for example). One doubts that his penchant for the Queen is shared to the same degree by most Quebec francophones.

[ 22. October 2012, 02:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Apparently, the Republic of San Marino claims to have been going since 301 AD.

Even if that claim isn't taken at face value, they've certainly been going for a fair few centuries.

[ 22. October 2012, 02:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I would challenge SPK on two minor points:

quote:
Governor's General terms are five years, just like a presidency in a parliamentary system.

While lieutenant-governors of provinces have terms of five years (sometimes extended) as provided for in Section 59, the Governor General serves at pleasure. Mind you, everyone, including His Excellency and the Prime Minister, seem to believe that this five-year convention has the force of law, but there is no basis for this belief. GGs Vanier and Michener had their terms extended by a few years.

I would challenge SPK's assertion that Prince William has significant French-language skills. I have heard him speak and only a generous examiner hoping for a decoration would give him a BBB. The Queen's French is good enough that she can undertake a 90-minute working session, and Prince Charles' French, although clunkier, is likely a CCB and quite serviceable. If William had taken a French bride, that might have improved his linguistic skills. O well.

In any case, as unanimous consent of the ten provinces will be required to change the system, I suspect that Canada will maintain the monarchy long after it disappears from the UK.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Force of law, force of practice. I just wasn't going to muddy the waters. The US President had unlimited term eligibility until 1948, but that didn't stop 150 years of the practice being two terms.

So William is a little shaky. I'm a little shaky at times, but I can hold a conversation in French. I didn't say William had great skills, but he did read a speech on his last Canada Day visit in French.

I'm hoping for a BBB, it isn't the easiest either.

For everyone else on the thread, Augustine and I are discussing the language ratings given to Canadian federal public servants for their second language (English/French). You have to meet the language profile to get a job and there is a profile for every job. BBB is approximately "Can compose a sentence on the fly and it usually makes sense without too many errors".

[ 22. October 2012, 03:38: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The royal house of Judah, descended from David, despite some very shaky occupants, lasted a great deal longer than the royal house of Israel, descended from 'Jeroboam son of Nebat who made Israel to sin'. His descendants were put off and there's a sorry series of military coups, short dynasties, and bloodthirsty eradications until the whole place disappears completely when the Assyrians invaded.

The longer something has been around, the more legitimacy it seems to have. If your ruler is a usurper, and you are stronger than he is, why not?

Legitimacy does seem to depend more on acceptance, smoke and mirrors, than dogma. There may be a royal house of Georgia that goes back to the time of the late Roman empire, but there isn't a king or queen sitting on a throne in Tblisi (or should I say Tiflis?).

Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch. There's an interesting thread about an interview with Mary McAleese on RTE running at the moment.

The North Korean situation is a bit odd. 'There is a divinity that doth hedge a king', but doth it hedge a Kim?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Hmmmm - there is that odd wobble in the middle where a child survives a purge (Josiah?) and then goes on to restore the rightful line. Always wondered who his parents really were.

And Timothy's comment earlier, about the Queen accepting it if the population decided to get rid of the monarchy, set me wondering. I may well be wrong, but she seems to accept the whole "servant of the people" thing more than some do who get voted into office, and then act as though the rules don't apply to them. Somehow can't see her calling anyone a pleb!

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I guess it depends what's meant by a republic or a monarchy coming to the 'end' of its existence. How many of the following count?

The country is conquered and overrun by its neighbours (e.g. 18th-century Poland)
The king is violently deposed and replaced by another king, who rules over what is essentially the same territory (e.g. Harold Godwinson)
The king is deposed and replaced by a republic that governs what is essentially the same territory (e.g. the French Revolution) or vice versa (the restoration of the French monarchy)
The dictator is deposed and replaced by another dictator, again without territorial changes (e.g. Batista / Castro)
The democratic government is overthrown by a coup d'état and replaced by a dictator, without territorial changes (e.g. Klement Gottwald, the Shah of Iran), or vice versa (e.g. Central Europe post-1989)
The country is absorbed into another country as a result of the family life of its monarch (e.g. Scotland, Bohemia)
The country breaks up, peacefully or otherwise, into its constituent parts (e.g. Austria-Hungary)
The country is absorbed into another country by the choice of its citizens (e.g. East Germany)
A bit of the country breaks off but most of it stays the same (e.g. Irish independence)
The key personnel and territory stay the same but constitutional changes alter the balance of power between them (e.g. Charles de Gaulle bagging all the power for the presidency)

The point is that there are so many variables that you'd have difficulty constructing a 'control group' to prove that republics are more or less stable than monarchies.

[ 22. October 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

Parizeau is British-educated, and cultivates a somewhat anglophile image, albeit filtered through a rather Hollywoodized idea of Britishness(he says "By Jove" when speaking English, for example).

Hollywoodized? Sounds to me like he's been overdosing on Asterix Chez Les Bretons (Asterix in Britain)

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Foreign shipmates who wish to google image Mr Parizeau can see how he would easily fit into Asterix' cosmos.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The royal house of Judah, descended from David, despite some very shaky occupants, lasted a great deal longer than the royal house of Israel, descended from 'Jeroboam son of Nebat who made Israel to sin'. His descendants were put off and there's a sorry series of military coups, short dynasties, and bloodthirsty eradications until the whole place disappears completely when the Assyrians invaded.

The longer something has been around, the more legitimacy it seems to have. If your ruler is a usurper, and you are stronger than he is, why not?

Legitimacy does seem to depend more on acceptance, smoke and mirrors, than dogma. There may be a royal house of Georgia that goes back to the time of the late Roman empire, but there isn't a king or queen sitting on a throne in Tblisi (or should I say Tiflis?).

Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch. There's an interesting thread about an interview with Mary McAleese on RTE running at the moment.

The North Korean situation is a bit odd. 'There is a divinity that doth hedge a king', but doth it hedge a Kim?

I'm certainly much more comfortable with the Irish model of Presidency than with the idea of nearly unlimited power concentrated in one person, and it was no co-incidence that the powers of the Irish President mirror those of the Queen, despite the Irish constitution being a written one.

And Irishman though I am, albeit with dual British/Irish citizenship, I should be most disappointed if the British monarchy wound down any time soon. Cf. Sober Preacher's Kid for my feelings on the matter, when I visited Canada for the first time this year I felt in many ways I had come home.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.

Unless you argue (and it is arguable) that the Union with Scotland was an imperialist takeover of the smaller nation, then a new monarchy must date from then, surely?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The Irish presidency is interesting in that it was intentionally modelled on the idea of a constitutional monarch, and the powers laid out in both the 1922 and 1937 constitutions outlined the contemporary understanding of King George's role and approach to his office. While I am no fan of de Valera, he carefully prescribed limits so that the president's power within those limits could not be circumscribed. In setting out a 7-year term, he made it clear that the presidential mandate was not identical to that of the Taoiseach.

Mind you, in my five years in Ireland, I saw four presidents come and go, including a very major presidential constitutional crisis.

Monarchies, if you've got them, provide an excellent way to chose the president in a parliamentary democracy. They also provide a way of showing that the state and its institutions are not identical to that of a party or faction and, as we have seen in Spain and the UK (e.g., Labour in 1922 and 1945), a way of ensuring a broad acceptance of radical change.

A Canadiuan quirk is that new citizens swear allegiance to the Queen (at lest for now, as variations on the oath are flitting around corridors at Citizenship and Immigration)-- I once had a conversation with a Romanian immigrant on this and she said that, in her 50 years, she had enough of declaring her allegiance to abstractions which meant nothing; she rather liked swearing allegiance to a human being.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.
Unless you argue (and it is arguable) that the Union with Scotland was an imperialist takeover of the smaller nation, then a new monarchy must date from then, surely?

On that basis, the Union with Ireland in 1800 is the date. However, in both cases, the same monarch was sovereign of both kingdoms before and the united one after.

Also, there are no separate alternative claimants to both thrones. Indeed, since the death of Cardinal Stuart in 1807, there isn't any real alternative claimant to either.

I think it is fairer to say that EII is the current occupant of the thrones of both Cerdic and Kenneth MacAlpin. Though in the latter case, it seems to be a bit unclear whether the Stuarts were descended from him, Matilda was.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch.

I think there are actually three types of Republics:

Full presidential republics, where the president is both head of state and head of government with all executive powers (like the US);
Semi-presidential republics, where the (usually popularly-elected president) is head of state but shares governmental/executive powers with a prime minister (by whatever name) and/or legislature, and where the president's cabinet appointments may be subject to legislative control (like France of Russia);
Parliamentary republics, where executive functions are lodged with a prime minister/legisature and the president functions mostly as a ceremonial head of state (like Ireland or Germany).

There are, of course, variations on these three models, and the lines can be blurred, but I think these are considered the three basic types of republics.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I'm a republican who finds constitutional monarchy to be a jolly good hobby in moderation. Someone has to grace all the commemorative crockery! I'd give the British monarchy a break for the Act of Union, since it was a peaceful and uncontroversial (among the electorate anyway) switch. The Civil War shortly afterwords wasn't so much. The Glorious Revolution I would count as a change in government because, while not violent, it was a drastic power grab by parliament.

Though the Japanese dynasty might get the record for the longest reigning in history, the monarchy's place in Japanese government has changed dramatically over time. So no stable government award.

Monarchies have their civil wars and violent changes in government too. This chatter about making more stable governments is malarkey.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.
Unless you argue (and it is arguable) that the Union with Scotland was an imperialist takeover of the smaller nation, then a new monarchy must date from then, surely?

Surely you mean 'an imperialist takeover of the larger nation'?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Hmm, I see what you mean! But the fact remains, it wasn't 'the same' monarchy either way.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Didn't Jimmy have a pretty credible claim to the English throne anyway?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Didn't Jimmy have a pretty credible claim to the English throne anyway?

Sure, but he only united the crowns. Scotland and England were still separate countries, albeit with the same king. The Union of the two countries didn't take place until 1706, under Anne.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'd give the British monarchy a break for the Act of Union, since it was a peaceful and uncontroversial (among the electorate anyway) switch. The Civil War shortly afterwords wasn't so much.

I presume by Civil War you mean Cavaliers and Roundheads? (This being what most Brits would understand.)

If so I think you're confusing several different events. When James VI of Scotland became king of England in the 17th century this created a personal union between the two countries but it did not make them into a single country, any more than Canada and the UK are one country, or the UK and Hanover were one country when the Georges were on the throne.

The Act of Union to which angloid occurs took place somewhat later, and was the point at which the Scottish Parliament was dissolved and subsumed into Westminster. I understand this was not without controversy, and that the Scottish government, having bankrupted themselves attempting to colonise Panama, were rather forced into the position by the English.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Force of law, force of practice. I just wasn't going to muddy the waters. The US President had unlimited term eligibility until 1948, but that didn't stop 150 years of the practice being two terms.

1953 actually. Since the Twenty-Second Amendment was passed during Truman's presidency the U.S. Constitution's provision against ex post facto legislation meant that it wouldn't take effect until the next president (Dwight Eisenhower) took office. This is actually explicitly acknowledged in the amendment's text.

quote:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

So technically Truman could have run for another term in 1952. Realistically he couldn't have been re-elected in 1952, but he was Constitutionally eligible.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'd give the British monarchy a break for the Act of Union, since it was a peaceful and uncontroversial (among the electorate anyway) switch.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... the Scottish government, having bankrupted themselves attempting to colonise Panama, were rather forced into the position by the English.

quote:
Originally written by Robert Burns:

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I had thought Saint Bess putting Saint Jim on the throne of England was the Act of Union. Turns out it weren't. Who knew?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

In fact there were two Acts of Union, 17-thingy and 1800.

No, looking at Wikipedia to check the dates, there were four - because each had to be passed in two separate Parliaments. And two Treaties of Union as well.

There was a whole lot of Uniting going on in the 18th century.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
ken: Brazil and Mexico both briefly had emperors.

As did Germany, but they lasted 48 years.

I just wanted to mention that the Empire of Brazil lasted longer than that (67 years).

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Angloid:

quote:

....we've already lost Ireland...

We were never a fucking prize for you to claim! Poor phrasing I hope.

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

I wonder how long the UK moarchy will survive the death of Queen Elizabeth 11. The Prince of Wales is a very strange character, with odd ideas, and a determination to interfere. If this behaviour continues when /if he inherits, there could be fireworks!

Long Live The Republic!

PS, I say 'if' he inherits, because QE11 seems immortal!

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think it will skip a generation - using the convenient excuse of Charles' age at accession. (Well technically he'd reign but only for a few weeks until he announced that "he" had decided to abdicate in favour of his eldest son.)

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Republicans in Canada (the handful of them) ...

More than a handful, I would say ...

quote:
In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so.

from Wikipedia article

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
More than a handful, I would say ...

quote:
In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so.
from Wikipedia article

In the spirit of a "something for everyone" kind of compromise, have you considered inviting one of Elizabeth II's three non-Charles children to form a cadet branch of the royal family as monarch of Canada? You've already got a Windsor, so just build a castle there (or wherever else seems appropriate), install the new sovereign, and in a couple generations a native born Canadian is your head of state while still retaining the monarchy. Or at least a monarchy.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Andy spent a year at Lakefield College School, near Peterborough ON in the 1970's. We already have Rideau Hall and La Citadelle de Quebec. La Citadelle is the closest thing we have to a castle in Canada.

Angus Reid. [Disappointed]

Ask Canadians if they want a President and watch the poll plummet.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
... I say 'if' he inherits, because QE11 seems immortal!

Shush- you'll let the cat out of the bag! Don't you know we're on our fourth QEII already?

It's all a Templar plot, of course. You don't think it's a coincidence that the institute where Dolly the Sheep was cloned was just down the road from Rosslyn Chapel, do you?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Andy spent a year at Lakefield College School, near Peterborough ON in the 1970's. We already have Rideau Hall and La Citadelle de Quebec. La Citadelle is the closest thing we have to a castle in Canada.

Angus Reid.

Ask Canadians if they want a President and watch the poll plummet.

It's not just Angus Reid, if that's what your smilie is disapproving of -- from the same article:

quote:
An August 2009 poll commissioned by "Canadian Friends of the Royal Family" found that the majority of Canadians, more than 60%, felt that a constitutional monarchy was outdated

The article lists polls over the recent years from a variety of sources show that anywhere from a third to two-thirds of Canadians are not in favour of the monarchy, find it outdated, etc.

My point was, and is "not a handful". Wishful thinking is no match for broad statistical evidence (unless you've got a majority in Parliament, as our dear leader knows well).

Care to provide some support for your assertion about a Canadian president? I don't see any relevant info on the Monarchist League's website, for example (which is where you'd expect to see such data). I'd be interested to see that, especially the phrasing of the questions.

A Canadian president would not have anywhere near the powers of the American one, assuming that our parliamentary structure remains the same. In the most plausible scenarios, a non-monarchical head of state would have the same powers as the Governor-General -- mostly symbolic and ceremonial.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

If the British monarchy was dropped by the British (i'm not getting into the complications of what if Scotland is no longer part of the UK at that point), in reality what would Canadians be most likely to do? Would one or more members of the Windsor family be likely to move to Canada? What if none of them wanted to move? In such a case perhaps might the consensus turn out to be that, "Well, we would be happy to keep the monarchy but since they've lost their job in Britain and it's just really too complicated to keep it here, so lets just go to a parliamentary republic"? (definition of parliamentary republic up-thread)

If i were a legal resident of Canada, i know i would be, like another member of the Ship, a socialist monarchist (or is it monarchist socialist).

[ 22. October 2012, 21:26: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Angloid:

quote:

....we've already lost Ireland...

We were never a fucking prize for you to claim! Poor phrasing I hope.

Indeed! Heartfelt apologies for (I hope) an uncharacteristic lapse. I don't usually refer to the UK as 'we', being an anti-imperialist supporter of nationalist movements.

But if my comments were rephrased I think my point stands, that the UK was a different country after the establishment of the Irish Republic (or even the Free State), and hence the monarchy is not the same thing before and after.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch. There's an interesting thread about an interview with Mary McAleese on RTE running at the moment.

The North Korean situation is a bit odd. 'There is a divinity that doth hedge a king', but doth it hedge a Kim?
I'm certainly much more comfortable with the Irish model of Presidency than with the idea of nearly unlimited power concentrated in one person, and it was no co-incidence that the powers of the Irish President mirror those of the Queen, despite the Irish constitution being a written one.

I'm not sure this is quite what you meant, but in case it is ... the US presidency does not concentrate nearly unlimited power in one person. Not even close. Congress makes laws and holds the purse strings, and the courts interpret laws. The president can issue executive orders, but that only goes so far. He has to negotiate with Congress, and while he gets to appoint people to the Supreme Court, once they're in office justices don't necessarily do what he expected them to do.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
If the British monarchy was dropped by the British (i'm not getting into the complications of what if Scotland is no longer part of the UK at that point), in reality what would Canadians be most likely to do? Would one or more members of the Windsor family be likely to move to Canada? What if none of them wanted to move? In such a case perhaps might the consensus turn out to be that, "Well, we would be happy to keep the monarchy but since they've lost their job in Britain and it's just really too complicated to keep it here, so lets just go to a parliamentary republic"? (definition of parliamentary republic up-thread)

If i were a legal resident of Canada, i know i would be, like another member of the Ship, a socialist monarchist (or is it monarchist socialist).

@Lothiriel- I have seen internal government polls which compare Canadian readiness to have an "elected Governor General" at about 60% but have president at 25%. I do not think that they were ever made public although the Association for Canadian Studies did similar polls.

Should the UK abolish the monarchy tomorrow, this would have no effect whatsoever on Canadian law and constitution. Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada etc etc continues operating. In about 3 years, the Prime Minister would write to Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, c/o Mrs E Mountbatten, Windsor, and ask her to commission Jane Siberry (or whoever) as the next Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada. Over the ages, letters would go to Admiral Charles Windsor-Mountbatten and then to A/Squadron Leader Bill Windsor.

The alternative is to have a constitutional amendment, which must be agreed to by All Ten Provinces (I capitalize this to underline the mythical and miraculous aspect, and PEI, Ontario and New Brunswick have already said they wouldn't assent), which would devise a replacement (which we would likely call Governor General because the word president is too problematic), the selection mechanism would have to be universally accepted (no PM would want a popular vote, and no province would agree to a federal appointment, as is currently the case, unless they get to appoint lieutenant governors in return). It goes without saying that at least three provinces would lunge at the opportunity to get something at the constitutional table for their vote and, moreover, two must by law submit it to popular referendum (BC and Alberta). The prospect of all of this is a nightmare to anyone dealing with federal-provincial relations. An internal document was prepared during Paul Martin's ministry, but I was insufficently exalted to ever see it.

And did we mention getting the assent of the First Peoples' organizations? No. I forgot that part. O brother.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

God knows I love the British Royals, but is there any hope for the Habsburgs, or the Wittelsbachs, or the Wettins, etc?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Takeaway: Canadians know and accept the role of twisting lightbulbs into sockets (the proper way to wave in public, per the Royal Family), and feel that if given the chance, they would like some formal public say in the process. Though the present system works well, the way a GG is selected by the PM is mysterious and suspicious.

Mind you, Superior Court/Queen's Bench judges and in particular Supreme Court judges are chosen by the PM as well, in a way that is opaque and mysterious, but works well. Nobody actually complains about the people on the bench, just the hazy method of putting them there.

I saw one post on another forum if you actually read Supreme Court rulings, particularly Charter rulings, the Supreme Court likes to say as little as possible and let the politicians work it out for themselves. The media usually makes mountains out of carefully constructed molehills.

Which is saying that everyone likes eating sausage but nobody wants to see how its made.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Foreign shipmates who wish to google image Mr Parizeau can see how he would easily fit into Asterix' cosmos.

Moneyandethnix?

link

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
God knows I love the British Royals, but is there any hope for the Habsburgs, or the Wittelsbachs, or the Wettins, etc?

For a while the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money had a feature called Sunday Deposed Monarch Blogging. There were specific entries on the Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs, and a cadet branch of the Wettins. The entries identified the current head of the deposed royal house and had a rough estimate of the chances of restoration for each.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

The path to a Canadian republic is indeed a tortuous (and torturous) one, and it probably wouldn't happen for quite some time. But Canada's history shows a progression from colony toward increasing independence: responsible government in 1840; Confederation in 1867; the Statute of Westminster in 1931, when Canada began to set its own foreign policy; Canadians becoming citizens of Canada rather than British subjects in 1947; Canada's Supreme Court becoming the court of last appeal in 1949 (rather than the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council); Canada adopting its own flag in 1965; and the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.

I can't speak for all Canadian republicans, but I think we've grown up enough as a country to move out entirely on our own and have a Canadian as head of state. And I say that as someone born in Canada, with deep roots in this country, including a dozen or more United Empire Loyalists in my family tree.

Augustine the Aleut: Thanks for the numbers. They are compatible with other, published polls -- many people are willing to consider detaching Canada from the monarchy, but they don't want American-style presidential politics and power (and who could blame them?). But, as Nick Tamen pointed out up-thread, an elected head of state with executive powers is not inevitable.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
God knows I love the British Royals?

You can have 'em if you like. I've no use for 'em.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.

Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

It would be interesting, in these demotic times, to see whether monarchy as practised by the Stuarts or the Hanoverians would get quite so much buy-in as the Windsors undoubtedly do. In other words, popular support might not persist if the bad practice of past generations were more obviously to re-emerge in the C21.

Anyway, we republicans will continue to be an irritant and argue our corner, despite the vitriol from the tabloids and the USA's fairy tale tourists.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

I'm not sure that I have ever been a republican. I might have said one ore two republican things when a teenager, to wind up my very monarchist, Diana PoW-obsessed mother (now sadly deceased), but for years now I have thought the monarchy to be the least-worst choice when compared to republicanism. I think the prospect of President Blair was a strong argument, in the early 2000s, against ditching the royals!

(I have got as far as changing my mind as to which side I'd suport in the (English) Civil War. I'd be with Oliver Cromwell now!)

[ 23. October 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
The path to a Canadian republic is indeed a tortuous (and torturous) one, and it probably wouldn't happen for quite some time. But Canada's history shows a progression from colony toward increasing independence:

The monarchists have a silver bullet though- having a queen makes Canadians different from Americans.

quote:
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

There's no reason the Windsors couldn't be voted out. They could still sit around in palaces wearing blocks of gold on their heads and everything. Really, it would change almost nothing- they could still be in tabloids and people could still buy ceramic thimbles to commemorate the baptism of one and heir if they wanted.

[ 23. October 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

There seems to be an assumption here that monarchies are only hereditary when in the past a lot of monarchies were elective. The Papacy is surely such a monarchy? Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland were.

Ken said that the German Empire only lasted 48 years but surely that was only the Second Reich the First Reich lasted a thousand years. And the Hohenzollerns although only providing emporers in the nineteenth century have been sovereign princes since the eleventh century.

Whilst no system is perfect modern monarchies provide some of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world encompassing such countries as Britain, Norway, The Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Jordan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Belgium, Jamaica et al.

If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.

Anyone who wants to do away with the British monarchy has only to cross the Channel to see what living in a republic would be like. Sarkozy or Hollande take anyone's fancy? President Blair? President Cameron? As for America the less said the better.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Thank you for our injection of vicious, histronical bile, Aumbry.

[ 23. October 2012, 13:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank you for our injection of vicious, histronical bile, Aumbry.

Yes

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

I think the Wittelsbachs still reign in a sense. They seem to be very public and take part in most state ceremonies - at least that's the impression I get. Not so much the others.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.

I've always suspected this, too.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
There seems to be an assumption here that monarchies are only hereditary when in the past a lot of monarchies were elective. The Papacy is surely such a monarchy? Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland were.

Poland certainly, but surely in practice the Holy Roman Empire was hereditary through the Habsburgs for most of its history and the only deviation from that rule occurred simultaneously with the War of Austrian Succession?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have seen internal government polls which compare Canadian readiness to have an "elected Governor General" at about 60% but have president at 25%. I do not think that they were ever made public although the Association for Canadian Studies did similar polls.

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Takeaway: Canadians know and accept the role of twisting lightbulbs into sockets (the proper way to wave in public, per the Royal Family), and feel that if given the chance, they would like some formal public say in the process. Though the present system works well, the way a GG is selected by the PM is mysterious and suspicious.

Do I understand this correctly to mean that 60% or so of Canadians would support a process by which the governor general is elected or nominated, but still is viceregal representative for the monarch, and 25% would support a (parliamentary) republic with an elected president? (As opposed to understanding it as 60% supporting a parliamentary republic where the head of state is called governor general rather than president?)

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

While American attachment to (fascination with?) the monarchy certainly can be sentimental and irrational, I'm not sure it is always. There is no perfect system, and I think at least sometimes what we we are attracted are is the perceived strengths in other systems that we lack.

In the US, we have a presidential republic. This, as opposed to a semi-presidential or parliamentary republic, is necessary for our system because of our insistence on separation of powers (as described by RuthW above). But a negative consequence of that is that our head of state is a political figure, and more often than not in recent memory a divisive political figure who mirrors the political polarization that is contemporary American life. Sure there's the pageantry, but I think that the value some Americans see in the monarchy is the value of a head of state who is above political labels.

[ 23. October 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank you for our injection of vicious, histronical bile, Aumbry.
Yes

Histronical? What does that mean?

I think you must have changed your message because that was not what I was answering. I thought it was well known that Woodrow Wilson was the proponent of doing away with the German Monarchy. It was hardly a British policy.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

"Histronical" because you have a fantasy history that conforms to your fascist predilections.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Sure there's the pageantry, but I think that the value some Americans see in the monarchy is the value of a head of state who is above political labels.

I'd go further, and say that there's value in having a head of state who is above politics itself.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd go further, and say that there's value in having a head of state who is above politics itself.

Indeed.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Monarchs are above democracy. They are only above politics if they choose to be. You lot lucked out when your fascist king abdicated.

I didn't enter this thread having strong feelings against monarchy, but seeing this rubbish about how corrupt and unstable democracy is is doing a good job creating them.

[ 23. October 2012, 14:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Histronical" because you have a fantasy history that conforms to your fascist predilections.

As far as I can see there is no such word as histronical. And whilst my post could be considered reactionary I fail to see how it is fascistic. Sadly you are using words, or more precisely non-words, that you don't yourself know the meaning of.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.

I'm sorry, that's not correct. The Kaiser fled into Holland because his state collapsed from the inside. This happened when his army failed to stabilise the front after the Battle of Amiens and streamed back in retreat.

Since 1870 it has been rare for any political regime to survive defeat in war.

I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.

Nick Tamen, I'd agree with your reservations about separation of powers, but the most obvious flaws from outside aren't having an executive head of state. It's that:-

a. The legislature is not responsible for administration; so it isn't responsible for carrying out the laws it makes, and

b. The executive isn't from day to day answerable to anyone, (there's no President's Question Time) and so can only be challenged by triggering a constitutional crisis.

From outside, just as we'd be better off with their electoral system, as republics go I can't help thinking that the constitution of Eire works better than the US one.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.
I'm sorry, that's not correct. The Kaiser fled into Holland because his state collapsed from the inside. This happened when his army failed to stabilise the front after the Battle of Amiens and streamed back in retreat.

Since 1870 it has been rare for any political regime to survive defeat in war.

I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.

Nick Tamen, I'd agree with your reservations about separation of powers, but the most obvious flaws from outside aren't having an executive head of state. It's that:-

a. The legislature is not responsible for administration; so it isn't responsible for carrying out the laws it makes, and

b. The executive isn't from day to day answerable to anyone, (there's no President's Question Time) and so can only be challenged by triggering a constitutional crisis.

From outside, just as we'd be better off with their electoral system, as republics go I can't help thinking that the constitution of Eire works better than the US one.

Yes - but I don't think the suggestion was that the Kaiser would continue as ruler merely that the Germans would continue with a new monarch in a reformed monarchical system.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As far as I can see there is no such word as histronical. And whilst my post could be considered reactionary I fail to see how it is fascistic. Sadly you are using words, or more precisely non-words, that you don't yourself know the meaning of.

Then call your screeds against democracy and weak, corrupt democratic leaders whatever you like. Your fantasies where American republicanism led to the Nazis are so ridiculous, they speak for themselves.

[ 23. October 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

IIRC some of the more prominent French royalists discredited their cause by aligning themselves rather too closely with Marshal Pétain. It doesn't help that there are two rival claimants.

Conversely, I recall that Karel Schwarzenberg, head of the (non-royal) Princely House of Schwarzenberg, is one of the most highly regarded politicians of the Czech Republic.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As far as I can see there is no such word as histronical. And whilst my post could be considered reactionary I fail to see how it is fascistic. Sadly you are using words, or more precisely non-words, that you don't yourself know the meaning of.
Then call your screeds against democracy and weak, corrupt democratic leaders whatever you like.

You have completely lost me there. What screeds against democracy and weak democratic leaders? Whether a system is monarchical or republican has nothing to do with it being a democracy or not.

Calm down dearie.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.

Ah, since most of the points assert the right to self determination of various European nations, which ones in particular are "high-minded drivel?" Is it the one against secret alliances? Or the League of Nations?

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Ah, since most of the points assert the right to self determination of various European nations, which ones in particular are "high-minded drivel?" Is it the one against secret alliances? Or the League of Nations?

It was described as American utopianism by Henry Kissinger of all people. Hardly noted for his anti-Americanisms.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Sure there's the pageantry, but I think that the value some Americans see in the monarchy is the value of a head of state who is above political labels.
I'd go further, and say that there's value in having a head of state who is above politics itself.

States are political entities. This kind of "let's take the politics out of politics" is just a backhanded endorsement of whatever status quo exists without coming right out and saying so.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

In most of those cases the claimants were born in foreign lands and later returned to the country whose throne they theoretically have a claim to.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Whilst no system is perfect modern monarchies provide some of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world . . .

While prosperous on a per capita basis, I'm not sure Saudi Arabia or Bahrain are good political role models.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't care. Read the 14 points and tell me which ones are high minded drivel.

Crossposted.

[ 23. October 2012, 15:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It was described as American utopianism by Henry Kissinger of all people. Hardly noted for his anti-Americanisms.

No, but he was noted for being anti-democracy. (Chile, Argentina, South Vietnam . . . )

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Ah, since most of the points assert the right to self determination of various European nations, which ones in particular are "high-minded drivel?" Is it the one against secret alliances? Or the League of Nations?

Because of the complex scattering of people in central and south eastern Europe during centuries when there had been free flow within large territorial units, he should have realised self-determination was only partially workable, if at all. The north eastern boundaries of Italy are still ethnically inaccurate, despite readjustment since, and both compulsory and de facto movements of population.

As it had lost, and there was nothing to hold it together, the disintegration of Austria-Hungary was probably inevitable, but has it really been a good thing? A supranational state in central Europe, and one that was fairly well run, has a lot going for it.

Serbia could only be given free access to the sea by forcing a number of other small nations to call themselves Serbs, and look what has happened to that.

Public diplomacy, and no secret agreements was particularly nonsensical.

The League of Nations was never going to go anywhere once the state whose President insisted on its being set up, refused to join.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[/qb]

While prosperous on a per capita basis, I'm not sure Saudi Arabia or Bahrain are good political role models. [/QB][/QUOTE]

The Arab monarchies, which should also include Morocco,Jordan, Oman and the Gulf Emirates as well as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, are havens of peaceful conexistence in comparison to a lot of the Arab republics. Whilst you are right in saying that Saudi is not a good political role model it stands a better chance of peaceful change than the Baathist socialist republican systems in Syria and formerly in Iraq, or Gadaffi's Libya. As to other Middle Eastern republics I would not consider the Islamic Republic of Iran a political role model either.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

It would be interesting, in these demotic times, to see whether monarchy as practised by the Stuarts or the Hanoverians would get quite so much buy-in as the Windsors undoubtedly do. In other words, popular support might not persist if the bad practice of past generations were more obviously to re-emerge in the C21.

Anyway, we republicans will continue to be an irritant and argue our corner, despite the vitriol from the tabloids and the USA's fairy tale tourists.

(i) A lot of monarchists- myself included- don't even pretend that the primary reasons for monarchy, in the modern world, are rational, although there may be a rational case for reatinming them in some countries where they exist, on the argument that it's not usually worth the effort and trouble of abolishing them. The point is that they do appeal to that sentimental, irrational, visceral side which is there and which you can't just, Dawkins-like, wish away- c.f. the point upthread about the Romanian Canadian who said that it was good to be able to swear allegiance to a person rather than to an abstract idea.
(ii) Of course Stuart/ early Hanoverian monarchy would get less buy-in now than the current Windsor model. Institutions do, and should, change over time and place. one might easily imagine Anglicans who are perfectly happy with episcopacy as practised by yourself, Pete, but who would not be so happy with say a Laudian or trad RC model. Similarly, there are no douibt republicans who are much happier with one of a modern French, German, or US version of republicanism than they would be with either of the other two, or with republicanism as practised in, say, C16 Venice.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I should have known to not get into this argument when it became "We need a strong, stable unelected leader to save us from corrupt and weak democratically elected leaders." [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While prosperous on a per capita basis, I'm not sure Saudi Arabia or Bahrain are good political role models.
The Arab monarchies, which should also include Morocco,Jordan, Oman and the Gulf Emirates as well as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, are havens of peaceful conexistence in comparison to a lot of the Arab republics. Whilst you are right in saying that Saudi is not a good political role model it stands a better chance of peaceful change than the Baathist socialist republican systems in Syria and formerly in Iraq, or Gadaffi's Libya. As to other Middle Eastern republics I would not consider the Islamic Republic of Iran a political role model either.

Coming back to a point I made earlier, given the hereditary transfer of power in Syria (and likely in Iraq had history not intervened) is there any reason to not consider these nations effectively to be monarchies, regardless of whatever they prefer to call themselves?

And of course "peaceful" is a fairly subjective term.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

The diffence is that although power passes from father to son in some of these republics it is not part of their constitutional set up that power passes that way. I can imagine that if this went on for long enough though then they might morph into something like a monarchy.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Nick Tamen asks:

quote:
Do I understand this correctly to mean that 60% or so of Canadians would support a process by which the governor general is elected or nominated, but still is viceregal representative for the monarch, and 25% would support a (parliamentary) republic with an elected president? (As opposed to understanding it as 60% supporting a parliamentary republic where the head of state is called governor general rather than president?)

It appears that 60% of Canadians would support a presidential republic provided that it is not called that, and that we have an elected governor general and the Queen remains as Head of the Commonwealth (as she is for republics such as India, Trinidad, Zambia etc). There is strong opposition to having a presidential republic by that name. One commentator noted that we already have a presidential republic, with monarchical windowdressing and the president, as in some other countries, effectively nominated by party leaders.

My own approach, which was snorted at with derision, was that we simply declare that the Act of the Protestant Succession and the Act of Union with Scotland (which form part of the Canadian constitution, to the confusion of many) will not prevail over the charter and so, at some point, an princess older than a prince will get the job, or someone of the blood royal who is married to an RC will succeed. Eventually we would get our own monarch, who would name themselves as GG, and we would carry on much as we do now.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I should have known to not get into this argument when it became "We need a strong, stable unelected leader to save us from corrupt and weak democratically elected leaders."

Monarchies are not antithetical to democracy nor republics to autocracy and your description of the arguments on this thread is a nothing more than a travesty.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The diffence is that although power passes from father to son in some of these republics it is not part of their constitutional set up that power passes that way.

I disagree. Hafez Assad and Saddam Hussein deliberately constituted their nations/governments in such a way to facilitate exactly that kind of inter-generational transfer of power.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I can imagine that if this went on for long enough though then they might morph into something like a monarchy.

Is that the "Holy Roman Empire" rule? Parent-to-child transfer of political power is "republicanism" if not part of the official constitution, unless it goes on long enough. Then it's "monarchy". How many transfers qualify as "enough", and does that retroactively make previous intra-familial power transfers monarchical, or are the first couple successions still counted as "republican"?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
It appears that 60% of Canadians would support a presidential republic provided that it is not called that

I've heard it from more than one Canadian that the primary charm of the monarchy for Canadians is that the United States doesn't have one.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The diffence is that although power passes from father to son in some of these republics it is not part of their constitutional set up that power passes that way.
I disagree. Hafez Assad and Saddam Hussein deliberately constituted their nations/governments in such a way to facilitate exactly that kind of inter-generational transfer of power.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I can imagine that if this went on for long enough though then they might morph into something like a monarchy.
Is that the "Holy Roman Empire" rule? Parent-to-child transfer of political power is "republicanism" if not part of the official constitution, unless it goes on long enough. Then it's "monarchy". How many transfers qualify as "enough", and does that retroactively make previous intra-familial power transfers monarchical, or are the first couple successions still counted as "republican"?

I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point but I believe there were republics in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century that gradually morphed into monarchies. Wasn't Florence one of them going from rule by a republican oligarchy to rule by the Medici dynasty?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

In France only among far-right weirdo fruitcakes.

Many German royal families either conveniently died out in a blaze of absinthe and decadence sometime between 1866 and 1914 or else became British or Spanish. Or ran away to Switzerland to be bankers. But there are a few around.

The granddaddies of them all, the Hapsburgs, still exist and are still involved in Austrian politics. but show no signs of wanting to be kings or emperors anywhere again. I wouldn;t be at all surprised if some of their relatives occasionally get dreessed up and go to parties where minor dukes curtsey in theur general direction or whatever it is that minor dukes do around Hapsburgs.

Plenty of countries have non-reigning monarchs who get some voluntary respect from the peopel their ancestors used to rule. Ghana has the Asantehene for example, who Asante can choose to treat as king if they want but no-one else does. Elaborate court ceremony and all. Uganda has about half a dozen little kings, though the history of their involvment in post-independence politics has mostly varied from sad to disastrous.

Us decent republicans have no objections to purely voluntary monarchies. As long as you leave us out of having to bow or scrape or pay for them.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[ Parent-to-child transfer of political power is "republicanism" if not part of the official constitution, unless it goes on long enough. Then it's "monarchy". How many transfers qualify as "enough", and does that retroactively make previous intra-familial power transfers monarchical, or are the first couple successions still counted as "republican"?

It happened to that bastion of liberal democracy, the Netherlands. The Dutch Republic drifted into monarchy sometime between 1688 and 1848. William III of England was never King of the Netherlands, just its semi-hereditary Statholder, a sort of Prime Minister. He was also also William III of Orange - but Orange wasn't in the Netherlands it was where it always had been, somewhere in the general region of the south of France. Yes, there was de facto Protestant Dutch dependency stuck in Catholic France duing the Wars of Religion - technically a free city of the Holy Roman Empire I think but in practice almost independent of it.

William IIIs predecessors, William the Silent and the notoriously grave Maurice had been more or less appointed by the representatives of the various United Provinces (I think in law they were representatives of the Emperor to start with, sort of like regents or agents or something, but in practice they were at war with the Emperor, and please nopbody mention the Grand Pensionary. Or Wiliam II who I have forgotten entirely - these things are somethimes more fun when you don't look them up) But his succesors - a series of increasingly ineffectual if well-meaning princelings one of whom was cruelly caricatured in the Sharpe series on TV - a great programme and a great advert for monarchy [Razz]

- got themselves made hereditary Stadtholders, then got booted out by Napoleon (happens to all the best royal families) and when they came back decided to call themselves kings after all and remained deeply unpopular for about a century until they got a good voiceover role in One of Our Aircraft is Missing and became instantly heroic, if not quite as instantly heroic as the King of Norway.

But then what do you expect from a nation state that was founded as a ruse by Charles V to keep his less favourite sons out of Belgium, and became both Protestant and independent due to a sneaky deal between some English pirates and a local gang of mercenaries.

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
... I believe there were republics in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century that gradually morphed into monarchies. Wasn't Florence one of them going from rule by a republican oligarchy to rule by the Medici dynasty?

The technical term is "coup" I think. Or possibly takeover, theft, conquest, appropriation, subjugation...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point but I believe there were republics in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century that gradually morphed into monarchies. Wasn't Florence one of them going from rule by a republican oligarchy to rule by the Medici dynasty?

I'm not sure that it was that gradual, organic or that it was acquiesced in by all.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
There seems to be an assumption here that monarchies are only hereditary when in the past a lot of monarchies were elective. The Papacy is surely such a monarchy? Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland were.

Ken said that the German Empire only lasted 48 years but surely that was only the Second Reich the First Reich lasted a thousand years. And the Hohenzollerns although only providing emporers in the nineteenth century have been sovereign princes since the eleventh century.

Whilst no system is perfect modern monarchies provide some of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world encompassing such countries as Britain, Norway, The Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Jordan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Belgium, Jamaica et al.

If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.

Anyone who wants to do away with the British monarchy has only to cross the Channel to see what living in a republic would be like. Sarkozy or Hollande take anyone's fancy? President Blair? President Cameron? As for America the less said the better.

The United Kingdom shares an open land border with a Republic that drives on the same side of the road and speaks the same language. Not that different from the UK really. And you can get the Daily Telegraph in every newsagents..

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point . . .

It was a callback to a point made by Ricardus (in response to you so I thought you might have remembered it) that although the official constitution of the Holy Roman Empire in theory allowed the election of anyone as Emperor, in actual practice it was just one long line of Habsburgs (and before them Hohenstaufens). This is directly relevant to your claim that it doesn't count as a monarchy if power transfers aren't officially via family relationship. My question is simple. How many Habsburgs in a row does it take before we acknowledge constitution-in-fact, regardless of what constitution-in-theory has to say on the matter?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nick Tamen, I'd agree with your reservations about separation of powers, but the most obvious flaws from outside aren't having an executive head of state. It's that:-

a. The legislature is not responsible for administration; so it isn't responsible for carrying out the laws it makes, and

b. The executive isn't from day to day answerable to anyone, (there's no President's Question Time) and so can only be challenged by triggering a constitutional crisis.

Valid points, though I think they may both be flip sides of the separation of powers coin. As I said, no system is perfect. A society decides which principles are most important to it -- and of those you noted above, American society decided that separation of powers was the most important -- and then lives with the downsides of that decision.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick Tamen asks:

quote:
Do I understand this correctly to mean that 60% or so of Canadians would support a process by which the governor general is elected or nominated, but still is viceregal representative for the monarch, and 25% would support a (parliamentary) republic with an elected president? (As opposed to understanding it as 60% supporting a parliamentary republic where the head of state is called governor general rather than president?)

It appears that 60% of Canadians would support a presidential republic provided that it is not called that, and that we have an elected governor general and the Queen remains as Head of the Commonwealth (as she is for republics such as India, Trinidad, Zambia etc). There is strong opposition to having a presidential republic by that name. One commentator noted that we already have a presidential republic, with monarchical windowdressing and the president, as in some other countries, effectively nominated by party leaders.

Thanks, AtA.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
The path to a Canadian republic is indeed a tortuous (and torturous) one, and it probably wouldn't happen for quite some time. But Canada's history shows a progression from colony toward increasing independence:
The monarchists have a silver bullet though- having a queen makes Canadians different from Americans.

Ah, but now that we've got universal health care we don't need her anymore to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours [Biased]

. The second amendment is also handy.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Ah, but now that we've got universal health care we don't need her anymore to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours . The second amendment is also handy.

The right to arm bears?

Seems I posted the same thing twice. Oops.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Ah, but now that we've got universal health care we don't need her anymore to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours . The second amendment is also handy.
The right to arm bears?

Seems I posted the same thing twice. Oops.

That's right -- our bears are unarmed.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

So what, your bears push people out windows instead?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So what, your bears push people out windows instead?

They still have their claws, they're just not packing heat.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Zach82: So what, your bears push people out windows instead?

The species Ursus defenestrans usually does.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch: Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
In most of those cases the claimants were born in foreign lands and later returned to the country whose throne they theoretically have a claim to.

At least for Brazil this is true. Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza was born in France, but I think he lives in São Paulo now.

I don't have the impression that this has stirred much thoughts of a revival of the Empire in Brazil. There is a group of monarchists in of course, but I'd guess the majority of the population doesn't even know that there is still a theoretical pretender to the throne.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
At least for Brazil this is true. Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza was born in France, but I think he lives in São Paulo now.

I don't have the impression that this has stirred much thoughts of a revival of the Empire in Brazil. There is a group of monarchists in of course, but I'd guess the majority of the population doesn't even know that there is still a theoretical pretender to the throne.

Perhaps they were just intimidated by someone whose full name is Dom Luís Gastão Maria José Pio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Orléans e Bragança e Wittelsbach. That's a lot of syllables to go through on formal state occasions. The aforementioned LGM series describes the chances of a Brazillian restoration thusly:

quote:
The likelihood of the House of Bragança’s return to Brazil’s throne seems microscopic, particularly given that the current leader [this was written in 2008], popularly-elected president Luís Inácio “Lula” da Silva, a former metalworker and union leader, is as far from inherited royalty as one can be. The Brazilian people have seemed to cast their stone, and it is not to the House of Bragança’s favor.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Actually, the Brazilian monarchists got their oar in back in 1993, when the law against campaigning for a restoration was finally annulled, and they got a question in on the constitutional referendum ending military rule. Their problem was that the succession was contested and both claimants spent a fair bit of time fighting each other. Dom Luiz ("the Chaste") was supported by right-wing RC integrists, and Dom Pedro of Petropolis by African Brazilians, and the effort failed miserably (13% for restoration, although a further 16% rejected the republican option as well).

In any case, recent Brazilian presidents have been functional and democratic, redeeming a century of incompetent fascist generals, and so it seems that the Braganzas are out of luck for now. Their chances were further reduced when the No 2 in line, the photogenic Pedro Luiz, was killed in the Air France crash in 2009.

The Petropolis line is a bit handicapped as Dom Pedro doesn't want the job and his son was charged with stealing his aunt's porcelain collection.

This is the sort of thing one learns from charming Cariocan forensic accountants as one steps along from Burgos to Castrojeriz-- it helped pass the 36km and I learned a lot about Brazilian history and tax law.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

From what I hear, the French monarchists are divided between supporters of the Bourbons and the Bonapartes, and they spend more time hating each other than democracy.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
From what I hear, the French monarchists are divided between supporters of the Bourbons and the Bonapartes, and they spend more time hating each other than democracy.

Close but not quite. The Orleanistes are still fighting the legitimistes. When they get that figured out, then the Bonapartistes are next.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point . . .
It was a callback to a point made by Ricardus (in response to you so I thought you might have remembered it) that although the official constitution of the Holy Roman Empire in theory allowed the election of anyone as Emperor, in actual practice it was just one long line of Habsburgs (and before them Hohenstaufens). This is directly relevant to your claim that it doesn't count as a monarchy if power transfers aren't officially via family relationship. My question is simple. How many Habsburgs in a row does it take before we acknowledge constitution-in-fact, regardless of what constitution-in-theory has to say on the matter?

But the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire was an elective monarchy - the fact that it took on a quasi-hereditary nature did not change that. It was never a republic.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy

[ 24. October 2012, 10:01: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).
Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy

That, Mudfrog, is a very good point indeed. I don't think I've ever seen it so well put.

Thinking about it, I too have heard a lot of rants. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue a rational case for a republic, rather than simply express resentment towards the Royals. That is saying more about their own inner complexes and problems with authority than anything to do with HRH herself.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I am all about an agreeable status quo. I am sure powerless figureheads provide lots of vague, unverifiable benefits. What I find ridiculous are screeds against democratically elected leaders and their inferiority to a woman who has done nothing more impressive to obtain her office than happening to be born to the previous office holder.

[ 24. October 2012, 13:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy
That, Mudfrog, is a very good point indeed. I don't think I've ever seen it so well put.

Thinking about it, I too have heard a lot of rants. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue a rational case for a republic, rather than simply express resentment towards the Royals. That is saying more about their own inner complexes and problems with authority than anything to do with HRH herself.

You must have missed the whole Enlightenment. It produced a whole raft of pamphlets containing nothing but "pragmatic, rational, cerebral . . . arguments" against the institution of monarchy. A lot of them can be summed up in the words of the prominent political theorist Dennis the Peasant, who argued that "supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses".

And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am all about an agreeable status quo. I am sure powerless figureheads provide lots of vague, unverifiable benefits. What I find ridiculous are screeds against democratically elected leaders and their inferiority to a woman who has done nothing more impressive to obtain her office than happening to be born to the previous office holder.

That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

Somehow I stumbled upon the Wikipedia page for the Communist Party of Britain. I would not bother to give them any thought but, based on this thread, I did give them some thought thinking, actually, that if anyone in the UK wanted an end to the monarchy surely it would be the Communist Party of Britain. I spent some time on their website but no where did I see any reference to the monarchy at all. I found that strange. (Note I did not read everything on the site so I may have missed a reference to the monarchy.) Do they call for the abolition of the monarchy?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.

Only if you think expressing a brazen fact, that Elizabeth Two's only qualification is being born, is "emotional resentment." [Roll Eyes]

[ 24. October 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.
Only if you think expressing a brazen fact, that Elizabeth Two's only qualification is being born, is "emotional resentment."

That, and that the pool of candidates is restricted to a particular family of upper-class, anglo-German, white people. I mean nothing pejorative by those descriptions, but by definition it rules out for ever a head of state who is working or middle class, from any minority ethnic group or even the greater part of the white majority. It's even more illogical than the view that only a male priest can represent women.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I've repeated it more than once, and I really mean it. I don't mind the idea of a powerless monarch- it's all gravy to me. What I object to is dreaming up shortcomings of democracy and demonizing its leaders to justify monarchy.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.

It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.
It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

That raises a couple questions:

1) To what extent does Queen Elizabeth "run" the UK (and Canada and Australia and any of the other nations of which she is the nominal head of state)?

2) Doesn't this comparison implicitly acknowledge the validity of comparing the results of the various selection proceses for heads of state?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

What chills my blood is the thought of Prince Charles actually getting to run a country. I am sure that would kill the romance very quickly indeed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
1) To what extent does Queen Elizabeth "run" the UK (and Canada and Australia and any of the other nations of which she is the nominal head of state)?

It was purely a rhetorical flourish.

But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

I for one don't want that important role open to any old dickhead who knows how to win a popularity contest.

quote:
2) Doesn't this comparison implicitly acknowledge the validity of comparing the results of the various selection proceses for heads of state?

I wasn't aware that I'd ever argued otherwise. It's quite simple for me - deciding who the Head of State shall be by a democratic process leaves open the possibility that my Head of State - the person who encapsulates and defines my whole country - will be Tony Fucking Blair or (God forbid) even David "Looks Pretty And Can Kick A Ball Well" Beckham. Keeping the monarchy eliminates that possibility. Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).
Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy
That, Mudfrog, is a very good point indeed. I don't think I've ever seen it so well put.

Thinking about it, I too have heard a lot of rants. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue a rational case for a republic, rather than simply express resentment towards the Royals. That is saying more about their own inner complexes and problems with authority than anything to do with HRH herself.

OK. Here's one. I like living in a democracy. I like having a say in who my representatives in power are. I therefore do not like being represented by someone whose only qualification for the task is an accident of birth.

Quite simple really. Would hold if I thought that Her Madge was God incarnate or if I thought she was spawned from Satan's supernumary third testicle.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.
It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

At least we can vote them out. And Bush's successor, whoever he is, is likely to have a big say in the running of this country whether we have a monarch or a president.

Nightmare scenario: King Charles with David Icke as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.
Only if you think expressing a brazen fact, that Elizabeth Two's only qualification is being born, is "emotional resentment."
That, and that the pool of candidates is restricted to a particular family of upper-class, anglo-German, white people. I mean nothing pejorative by those descriptions, but by definition it rules out for ever a head of state who is working or middle class, from any minority ethnic group or even the greater part of the white majority. It's even more illogical than the view that only a male priest can represent women.

Aside from the minor technicality that the Queen has Moorish ancestors, there is nothing to prevent anyone in line to the throne from marrying a member of a visible minority. Prince William's choice of Kate Middleton over Zadie Smith was perhaps a missed opportunity.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
1) To what extent does Queen Elizabeth "run" the UK (and Canada and Australia and any of the other nations of which she is the nominal head of state)?
It was purely a rhetorical flourish.

But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

I for one don't want that important role open to any old dickhead who knows how to win a popularity contest.

So essentially the monarchy's main job is making sure the British feel good about being British, and that other countries have good feelings towards the UK (and associated Commonwealth nations)? Is that a fair summary?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
2) Doesn't this comparison implicitly acknowledge the validity of comparing the results of the various selection proceses for heads of state?
I wasn't aware that I'd ever argued otherwise.

No, but mudfrog and Enoch both advanced this argument. I just wanted you to clarify your thoughts on the matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's quite simple for me - deciding who the Head of State shall be by a democratic process leaves open the possibility that my Head of State - the person who encapsulates and defines my whole country - will be Tony Fucking Blair or (God forbid) even David "Looks Pretty And Can Kick A Ball Well" Beckham. Keeping the monarchy eliminates that possibility. Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not convinced that a monarchical system automatically eliminates unsuitable candidates as you suggest. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism at hand to remove a truly disasterous monarch on anything other than a voluntary basis, so it seems as if you're arguing that the process of being raised within the royal family automatically promotes whatever virtues you think are necessary to fulfil the role of national good-feelings generator. That doesn't seem immediately obvious.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Actual work gets your hands dirty. So it's all extraordinary that the monarchists here think it's such a compelling point in their favor that duly elected leaders have dirty hands.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

Is that really true, though? When people think of Germany and Italy, I bet they think of Angela Merkel and Mario Monti (the heads of government) rather than Joachim Gauck and Giorgio Napolitano (the heads of state). (Certainly I do - I had to look up the last two names on Wikipedia.)

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Going back to New Yorker's question about the British Communists:

Being a Communist is allowed in England (unlike certain other countries). They can run for Parliament, and theoretically can persuade enough people to vote for them. The chances of them developing policies that are attractive enough to give them any significant power are quite small, however.

So they don't waste their effort on pointless symbolic policies. The Queen represents the people as a figurehead, and would be compelled to accept them if they did get elected - and this would provide a symbol of success and acceptance that they desire. Why demand to get rid of her?

I could also point out that one of the Toronto-area ridings in Canada elected a Communist for many years. He was a good constituency man, and did no harm otherwise, so why get in a lather about his party?

Same for the PQ: More often than not they did a good job, on the grounds that what was good for their constituents was usually also good for other constituents right across the country. This annoyed the (small-c) conservatives,but that in itself is often a good thing.

As pointed out above, these people all accepted the G-G (= Queen) as the symbol of civic acceptance for them a neutral figure operating outside of party idiocy.

Do you want medals presented by a political hack doing a photo op, or by someone who can speak for the whole country?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
whether we have a monarch or a president.

I dson't see why6 we need either.

When people say to republicans like me, "What would you put in its place?" I am inclined to say, "Nothing. But if you need someone to shake hands and greet visiting dignitaries, why not give the role to one of the pearly kings and queens? They could each serve for a year."

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So essentially the monarchy's main job is making sure the British feel good about being British, and that other countries have good feelings towards the UK (and associated Commonwealth nations)? Is that a fair summary?

If you want to phrase it that way, yes. The monarch is a figurehead.

quote:
I'm not convinced that a monarchical system automatically eliminates unsuitable candidates as you suggest.

Not automatically, no. But given that you've got their entire lives from birth in which to train them up properly, it gives you the best possible chance of ensuring that they're up to the task when their time comes.

quote:
There doesn't seem to be a mechanism at hand to remove a truly disasterous monarch on anything other than a voluntary basis,

Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 [Smile]

quote:
so it seems as if you're arguing that the process of being raised within the royal family automatically promotes whatever virtues you think are necessary to fulfil the role of national good-feelings generator. That doesn't seem immediately obvious.

Like I said, it gives you the longest possible time to train them for the role.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
When people think of Germany and Italy, I bet they think of Angela Merkel and Mario Monti (the heads of government) rather than Joachim Gauck and Giorgio Napolitano (the heads of state).

Italy is still Berlusconi in my mind.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

[To Horseman Bree and others:]

I have never, ever seen any campaigning for the Communist party over here. Nor have I ever lived in a constituency with a Communist candidate.

Far-left people tend to vote Respect (which has one MP) or whatever agglomeration the Socialist Workers Party is currently standing in. The latter as far as I know have no MPs or councillors, although they are very good at turning up to demos with about a million SWP banners to make themselves look more prominent than they are.

[ 24. October 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

I for one don't want that important role open to any old dickhead who knows how to win a popularity contest.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So essentially the monarchy's main job is making sure the British feel good about being British, and that other countries have good feelings towards the UK (and associated Commonwealth nations)? Is that a fair summary?
If you want to phrase it that way, yes. The monarch is a figurehead.

This comes to one of the contradictions at the heart of the monarchist argument. The idea that the monarch should be popular (i.e. generate a lot of positive feelings at home and abroad), but not someone "who knows how to win a popularity contest". I take the opposite view. If we accept that the monarch's primary (and, in modern times, only) job is to be popular, not knowing "how to win a popularity contest" is failing the monarch's one remaining function.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .

Strange. I thought we'd done that in 1688 and 1936.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I also find some tension in the idea that monarchs are somehow more virtuous than slimy, elected politicians, and the idea that we need a monarch to be above politics. Which is it- are they really more virtuous, or are they merely protected from the realities of running a government? Are they mere cardboard cut-outs standing in for nationalist pretensions, or are they heads of state because they really deserve it?

By the by, while your Queen is cutting ribbons at school openings and pinning medals on people, the people that jump to my mind with the words "the Leader of the United Kingdom" are Winston Churchill, Tony Blaire, and David Cameron. But that's just me.

[ 24. October 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I also find some tension in the idea that monarchs are somehow more virtuous than slimy, elected politicians, and the idea that we need a monarch to be above politics. Which is it- are they really more virtuous, or are they merely protected from the realities of running a government? Are they mere cardboard cut-outs standing in for nationalist pretensions, or are they heads of state because they really deserve it?

By the by, while your Queen is cutting ribbons at school openings and pinning medals on people, the people that jump to my mind with the words "the Leader of the United Kingdom" are Winston Churchill, Tony Blaire, and David Cameron. But that's just me.

Zach82 you are failing to appreciate that different peoples, even though you think they may speak the same language as you do, look at these things in very different ways.

Apart from during the 2nd World War, Winston Churchill was quite a divisive figure. Tony Blair and David Cameron both are. A large element within the population would be unable to see either as personifications of the nation, figure to whom they could be loyal and on whose behalf they are prepared to lay down their lives.

From over here, Barak Obama looks quite a good President, a person round whom peoples' loyalties could crystallise - unlike his immediate predecessor. However, it is obvious even from reading threads on the Ship, that he is not seen that way in the country of which he is leader.

I am not sure that I can see how, without a
non-political constitutional monarch or president, you deal with that, but doubtless, there must be some way because otherwise the US army would only fight if its entire personnel changed each time there was an election.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I also find some tension in the idea that monarchs are somehow more virtuous than slimy, elected politicians, and the idea that we need a monarch to be above politics. Which is it- are they really more virtuous, or are they merely protected from the realities of running a government? Are they mere cardboard cut-outs standing in for nationalist pretensions, or are they heads of state because they really deserve it?

I'm not sure it's a matter of slimy, elected politicians versus non-elected virtuous heads of state. It's a matter of politics being, by definition, divisive. Some people will have voted for any given POTUS, others will have voted against him.

Ideally, once the election is done with, the majority of the country can get behind the elected POTUS as head of state even if they oppose his policies and prefer to see him defeated in the next election. And we have seen this at times in our history -- particularly during times of national crisis.

But over recent decades, we've also seen very close presidential elections that have revealed a polarized electorate and that have been followed by bumper stickers that say things like "Not My President" and "Don't Blame Me! I Voted for _____." I think one need only compare the popularity ratings of any recent president with those of Elizabeth II to compare the potential effects of a constitutional monarchy (where the monarch is required to remain apolitical) and a system where such a large part of the electorate not only votes against but actively opposes the political positions of a president.

Does that mean I think we should ditch our system for a monarchy? Hardly. It just means that any system will have its advantages and its disadvantes, and we have decided that the advantages of our system outweigh the disadvantages of electing politicians as heads of state, that the benefits of our system are worth the risks of having a head of state that large segments of the population may oppose bitterly. Other countries can and do come to different conclusions as to what works best for them.

quote:
By the by, while your Queen is cutting ribbons at school openings and pinning medals on people, the people that jump to my mind with the words "the Leader of the United Kingdom" are Winston Churchill, Tony Blaire, and David Cameron. But that's just me.

I rather suspect that Winston Churchill would have pointed to George VI as at the least sharing the leadership of the UK and the Commonwealth during the Second World War. His eulogy on George's death would certainly seem to so indicate.

[ 24. October 2012, 17:55: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .
Strange. I thought we'd done that in 1688 and 1936.

Perhaps he only counts the ones which get collects in the BCP.

1688. Lord of All power and might, author and giver of all good things, thrones included: Graft in our hears the love of thy Word, increase in your servant leaders true religion and, failing that, a swift boat to France, nourish us with all goodness and a crown shared by two people, and by thy great mercy spare us from Italian queen consorts, through etc

1936. O God, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things in heaven and earth: We hunmbly beseecch to to put away from us all hurtful things, including chain-smoking monarchs with argyle socks, and to show us that even the least of princes unable to pronounce shibboleth may lead us, through etc

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
whether we have a monarch or a president.
I dson't see why6 we need either.

Hear hear!

Who remembers who the head of state of Switzerland is? Not even the Swiss. Are they bothered?

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .
Strange. I thought we'd done that in 1688 and 1936.
Perhaps he only counts the ones which get collects in the BCP.

More than just those of course.

1688/89 - James II removed by Parliament (with a bit of assistance from the aforementioned Prince of Orange and John Churchill) Real wars over that one, including the famous Battle of the Boyne (the Pope was on King Billy's side)

1714/15 - George I put in place by a succession of Acts of Parliament (going back a few years) and some nifty stacking of various committees with his friends. There was a war or two over that one as well.

1810/11 - Parliament replaced the king with the Prince Regent - laws were passed without royal assent as there were no royals capable of assenting to them. No war over that one. Maybe because Napoleon was already supplying all the wars the market could bear and we had no need of additional ones.

1936/37 - Parliament made the king an offer he couldn't refuse. Not just one Parliament, a whole gang of them. Even the Kiwis and the Irish got in on the act. If he had tried to say no he'd have been sleeping with the fishes. No shortage of wars round about hten either, but none of them specifically to do with Edward VIII. Even if he was a fan of Mussolini.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not sure that I can see how, without a
non-political constitutional monarch or president, you deal with that, but doubtless, there must be some way because otherwise the US army would only fight if its entire personnel changed each time there was an election.

My theory is that this is why the American flag has taken on such significance in American culture and civic life, a significance often not found elsewhere. Our political system leaves something of a void in this regard, and that void has been filled by the flag. It, rather than the president or any other person, has become the symbol and embodiment, as it were, of the nation.

Just for one example: Your national anthem is about your monarch; ours is about our flag.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Who remembers who the head of state of Switzerland is? Not even the Swiss. Are they bothered?

They have a "collective" head of state -- the 7-member Federal Council, which currently includes members of five different political parties.

The Swiss always did have their own way of doing things. (And I must say, it sounds rather Calvinist to me, placing power in councils rather than in individuals. [Two face]

)

[ 24. October 2012, 18:06: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not sure that I can see how, without a
non-political constitutional monarch or president, you deal with that, but doubtless, there must be some way because otherwise the US army would only fight if its entire personnel changed each time there was an election.
My theory is that this is why the American flag has taken on such significance in American culture and civic life, a significance often not found elsewhere. Our political system leaves something of a void in this regard, and that void has been filled by the flag. It, rather than the president or any other person, has become the symbol and embodiment, as it were, of the nation.

Just for one example: Your national anthem is about your monarch; ours is about our flag.

A similar significance is often placed around the U.S. Constitution (and, theoretically, the ideas contained therein, thought that's a bit more hit-or-miss).

Interesting the U.S. flag wasn't a particularly popular symbol in the early years of the country. It wasn't unpopular, it just wasn't in particularly widespread use. It was flown on army bases, post offices, and other facilities associated with the federal government but wasn't widely displayed in the broader society. The American flag first became really popular around the time of the U.S. Civil War, probably because for the first time there was a competitor flag.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A similar significance is often placed around the U.S. Constitution (and, theoretically, the ideas contained therein, thought that's a bit more hit-or-miss).

Yes, you're right. But even though written, the constitution is a bit more abstract to serve as the symbol or embodiment of the nation. We can all see a flag. (Everywhere we look, these days.)

When I was admitted to the bar, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, as does every elected official in the country. But it is the Pledge of Allegiance (to the flag) that is taught to every school child and is recited at civic and public gatherings all the time (though many choose not to participate, as is their right).

quote:
Interesting the U.S. flag wasn't a particularly popular symbol in the early years of the country. It wasn't unpopular, it just wasn't in particularly widespread use. It was flown on army bases, post offices, and other facilities associated with the federal government but wasn't widely displayed in the broader society. The American flag first became really popular around the time of the U.S. Civil War, probably because for the first time there was a competitor flag.

Yes, the Civil War is when it took on added significance. Of course, the Civil War is also when the idea of the United States as a nation in and of itself rather than a federation of states took deeper hold. It is around the time of the Civil War that we start to see the US referred to in the singular ("the United States is . . .") rather than plural ("the United States are . . .").

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Zach82 you are failing to appreciate that different peoples, even though you think they may speak the same language as you do, look at these things in very different ways.

I am perfectly capable of understanding something that you can clearly define and explain. Even though I'm an American.

Which I assume was the subtext of this statement.

quote:
I'm not sure it's a matter of slimy, elected politicians versus non-elected virtuous heads of state.

That certainly is how it's been framed on this thread again and again, by more than one person. This is my issue. I'm not attacking your monarch. I really don't care about her. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I'm not sure it's a matter of slimy, elected politicians versus non-elected virtuous heads of state.
That certainly is how it's been framed on this thread again and again, by more than one person. This is my issue. I'm not attacking your monarch. I really don't care about her. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

My monarch? That's me you're quoting, Zach, and I'm an American. I'd have thought that was pretty clear from my posts in this thread, including the post from which you quoted, where I said:

quote:
Does that mean I think we should ditch our system for a monarchy? Hardly.

My guess is that you have to keep repeating it because some perceive you as responding to what you think they meant instead of what they actually said. Reading back through this thread, I just don't see things being framed as slimy politican vs virtuous monarch "again and again" the way you seem to.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
My guess is that you have to keep repeating it because some perceive you as responding to what you think they meant instead of what they actually said. Reading back through this thread, I just don't see things being framed as slimy politican vs virtuous monarch "again and again" the way you seem to.

Look closer at Marvin the Martian and Aumbry's posts, where it's only the most obvious.

quote:
My monarch? That's me you're quoting, Zach, and I'm an American. I'd have thought that was pretty clear from my posts in this thread, including the post from which you quoted, where I said:

Sorry I mixed up your nationality, but my point there holds. I don't give two craps about monarchs. I'm not against them. I just don't think they are better people than elected officials.

Or how about this. I care about the queen of England about as much as a care about the American flag.

[ 24. October 2012, 19:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
My guess is that you have to keep repeating it because some perceive you as responding to what you think they meant instead of what they actually said. Reading back through this thread, I just don't see things being framed as slimy politican vs virtuous monarch "again and again" the way you seem to.
Look closer at Marvin the Martian and Aumbry's posts, where it's only the most obvious.

I have, and have just done so again. I don't see it as obvious at all, and I note that Aumbry at least twice pointed out that she was not arguing what you claimed she was arguing.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Then interpret this for me.

quote:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.

Anyone who wants to do away with the British monarchy has only to cross the Channel to see what living in a republic would be like. Sarkozy or Hollande take anyone's fancy? President Blair? President Cameron? As for America the less said the better.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Marvin stated his confidence in democratically elected figures thusly,

quote:
I wasn't aware that I'd ever argued otherwise. It's quite simple for me - deciding who the Head of State shall be by a democratic process leaves open the possibility that my Head of State - the person who encapsulates and defines my whole country - will be Tony Fucking Blair or (God forbid) even David "Looks Pretty And Can Kick A Ball Well" Beckham. Keeping the monarchy eliminates that possibility. Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

[ 24. October 2012, 20:38: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Zach, neither of of those examples compare slimy politicians to virtuous monarchs. They compare systems where the head of state is essentially outside of the political system to those where the head of state is chosen within the political system. Aumbrey noted a few times that democracy is not limited to republics and also noted the number of political systems in history where the monarchs were elected rather than inheriting the throne.

As best I can tell, the comparisons that pretty much everybody has been making in this thread have to do with the pros and cons of a head of state chosen within the political process, and therefore chosen by the people but with the potential of being a divisive rather than a unifying figure, and a head of state chosen (by whatever method) outside the political process, who may be seen as unifying but also may be seen as imposed rather than chosen by the people and anachronistic. Well, that and comparisons about what model has been more stable historically.

But as best I can tell, the only person who has attempted to equate pliticians with "slimy" and monarchs with "virtuous" is you.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

So in your mind, comparing "Tony Fucking Blaire" with David Beckham isn't a value judgement, and blaming the Nazis on democracy is all just weighing pros and cons?

[ 24. October 2012, 21:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't give two craps about monarchs. I'm not against them. I just don't think they are better people than elected officials.

And this is the main problem - the argument seems to focus on the personality. 'Better people?' What's that got to do with anything?

Constitutional Monarchy is a system, not a person - and even less, a family.
At the moment we have a good and popular person who fulfils the public role, but the constitutional/governmental role could be quite adequately done by someone with no people skills whatever.

It is the government of the UK that is the costitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy. Criticising the incumbent is entirely irrelevant and useless, for it cannot change anything.

The PM rules in the name of the Crown and the Queen is the embodiment of that Crown. She is not the Crown and neither does she rule. She reigns and laws are signed by her and drafted in her name, but it is the crown she wears that is the symbol of monarchical power.

She could be in a coma and the Crown would still act as the supreme authority in the land.

[ 24. October 2012, 21:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Which is all well and good, Mudfrog, and I actually have no problem with anything you said. So long as governments are basically democratic, as the UK's is, who cares what fiddly bits are tacked on to it?

[ 24. October 2012, 21:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So in your mind, comparing "Tony Fucking Blaire" with David Beckham isn't a value judgement, and blaming the Nazis on democracy is all just weighing pros and cons?

As to the first, I take it as a value judgment on Blair's and Labour's policies and on popularity vs fitness, not as a proposition that politicians are slimy or monarchs virtuous.

As to the second, I don't think Aumbrey blamed the Nazis on democracy. I think she blamed the fertile ground for the Nazis on an attitude of America Knows What's Best For the World. Two very different things.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
As to the first, I take it as a value judgment on Blair's and Labour's policies and on popularity vs fitness, not as a proposition that politicians are slimy or monarchs virtuous.

As to the second, I don't think Aumbrey blamed the Nazis on democracy. I think she blamed the fertile ground for the Nazis on an attitude of America Knows What's Best For the World. Two very different things.

Come on Nick, have the charity for me that you have to strain so mightily to give Marvin and Aumbry. I didn't get my concerns from just nowhere and you know it.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Which is all well and good, Mudfrog, and I actually have no problem with anything you said. So long as governments are basically democratic, as the UK's is, who cares what fiddly bits are tacked on to it?

But it's not 'tacked on' - it's foundational. The Crown IS the Government. What has changed is that the Crown is no longer the person - as in the days of Henry VIII for example. The powers of the King may have been devolved to parliament but they are still there. What we vote for is which government do we want to exercise the powers of the Crown.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

For me, democracy is about the ends of freedom of discourse and life and liberty and all that. So long as a government protects its citizens' rights, it's window-dressing to me. I don't really romanticize the flag or the founding fathers or any of that myself, so it's not like I am holding the US system up as an example over the UK.

[ 24. October 2012, 22:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Come on Nick, have the charity for me that you have to strain so mightily to give Marvin and Aumbry. I didn't get my concerns from just nowhere and you know it.

Sorry Zack; perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I just don't see them saying what you're ascribing to them. As others are noting, they're talking about the relative merits of systems, not individuals who may or may not be slimy or virtuous. It's you, I think, who is reading that into the discussion.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Sorry Zack; perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I just don't see them saying what you're ascribing to them. As others are noting, they're talking about the relative merits of systems, not individuals who may or may not be slimy or virtuous. It's you, I think, who is reading that into the discussion.

Then get over it.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Then get over it.

There's nothing to get over.

[ 24. October 2012, 23:05: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Meanwhile, we interrupt the special program to bring you the regular program of this thread.

Would anyone like to consider the role of the monarchy in Scandinavia? The monarchs there seem to be amiable and respectable heads of state, well-known in their countries, and suited to being the "national focus" when needed.

I could point out that the Norwegians elected theirs in 1905. The others have much longer continuous lines, but were still put into office by "national will".

The Dutch are similar. Maybe it works better in smaller, more homogeneous places ... or is it colder ones?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Again, they're hereditary presidents (in a parliamentary/weak presidential system). That's how monarchs work best.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Another good thing about a monarchy is that it is not party political. It doesn't have an agenda other than The Nation. It cannot be bought, bribed, coerced; it doesn't need to curry the voters' favour or look at opinion polls, exit polls or popularity polls. It doesn't need to get its message across or keep an eye on electability. It doesn't need to campaign or make promises.

The Monarchy is just there and a great many people trust it because it's not political.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Where did this weird notion that America dismantled the German monarchy come from?

It was the German Revolution of 1918/1919 that finished the Kaiser. He'd been effectively cut off from any command over the army since 1917, had lost the support of the officers as a class, and many regiments were on the verge of mutiny. Even his own guards probably would not have risked their lives to save him, and when serious mutinies broke out in the Navy he had nowhere to go but away. He was too stupid to see it though, and didn't realise what was happening until Prince Max told him that the army would no longer fight for the monarchy - he thought that the only way of getting the soldiers back on side and avoiding a communist revolution was a centre-left coalition to exclude the far left, and the only way the Social Democrats and Liberals would join that was a constitutional republic. In the end even bloody Hindenburg toild him to go. And he went before the Armistice, not after it, and months before the Treaty of Versailles - there were no American (or French or British) troops on German soil the day the Kaiser ran away.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Where did this weird notion that America dismantled the German monarchy come from?

Wherever it came from, independence for Poland and evacuation of German armies from France and Belgium is "high minded drivel" there.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Where did this weird notion that America dismantled the German monarchy come from?
Wherever it came from, independence for Poland and evacuation of German armies from France and Belgium is "high minded drivel" there.

I think the 'high minded drivel' previously referred to was the idea that nationality should be based on race, which is implicit in the concept of 'national self-determination'.

Suddenly there were millions of Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovenes, and others who were in the 'wrong' country.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Wilson hardly invented nationalism, and the idea had plenty of traffic both before the War and since. In fact, the Balkan nations had already been independent before WWI.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another good thing about a monarchy is that it is not party political. It doesn't have an agenda other than The Nation. It cannot be bought, bribed, coerced; it doesn't need to curry the voters' favour or look at opinion polls, exit polls or popularity polls. It doesn't need to get its message across or keep an eye on electability. It doesn't need to campaign or make promises.

The Monarchy is just there and a great many people trust it because it's not political.

Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.

And a powerless head of state wouldn't need to be elected by popular vote, either. In Canada, the monarch's representative, the Governor General, is now appointed by the queen on the advice of one person -- our prime minister. By convention, the queen has absolutely no say in the matter. How much different, functionally, would it be if our head of state were appointed by Parliament, or the Senate (itself an appointed body) or the Companions of the Order of Canada?

Heck, I'd even consider a hereditary symbolic head of state as long as they were Canadian and lived in Canada.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I might go for the "no head of state at all" line. In the very least the power of the executive branch of the US government needs to be trimmed back. The nationalist sentiments that sustain the presidency and monarchy alike are most odious, if'n you ask me.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And this is the main problem - the argument seems to focus on the personality. 'Better people?' What's that got to do with anything?

I think it does matter if the monarch is intended to be a symbol or figurehead or embodiment. If the UK is to be symbolised by the monarch, it matters whether we are being symbolised by someone who is generally decent (like the Queen) or someone who is a complete knob.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Wilson hardly invented nationalism, and the idea had plenty of traffic both before the War and since. In fact, the Balkan nations had already been independent before WWI.

True (and indeed the Balkans had been fighting each other over the boundaries of Serbia), and in fairness it's hard to see what else could have been done. But I think there's a difference between accepting a dubious but pragmatic solution, and claiming a dubious situation as virtuous.

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.

I think that depends on the stability of the rest of the situation.

e.g. In the Czech Republic the president has very few powers, but they are supposed to step in if the government collapses. Czech politics being quite volatile, this happens quite frequently (I believe Václav Klaus swore in six governments in seven years or something like that), so the president in practice has quite a lot of power that he wouldn't have if the other politicians behaved themselves.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
True (and indeed the Balkans had been fighting each other over the boundaries of Serbia), and in fairness it's hard to see what else could have been done. But I think there's a difference between accepting a dubious but pragmatic solution, and claiming a dubious situation as virtuous.

And I think there is a difference between "a dubious but pragmatic solution" and "high-minded drivel that makes American republicanism responsible for the end of the German monarchy and the rise of the Nazis."

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Wilson hardly invented nationalism, and the idea had plenty of traffic both before the War and since. In fact, the Balkan nations had already been independent before WWI.

The implications of ethnic based nationalism were clear in the Balkans at least from the mutual massacres during the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s. Wilson didn't invent nationalism but that if anything offers even fewer grounds to excuse him for not recognising the likely implications of his policy.

[ 25. October 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

You won't get any arguments from me that nationalism is one of the more odious inventions of the human mind. But saying it was Wilson's idea is ridiculous. These nations already existed, and had already fought over territory before. The German government asked the United States to arbitrate the terms of surrender, if I'm not mistaken.

[ 25. October 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You won't get any arguments from me that nationalism is one of the more odious inventions of the human mind. But saying it was Wilson's idea is ridiculous.

Er, who has?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

If you'll read the thread, you'll see that American republicanism and the "high minded drivel" of the 14 points are said to be responsible for the fall of the German monarchy and the rise of the Nazis.

The only high minded parts I see are against secret alliances and the establishment of the League of Nations, but I can't see how those are drivel. As for the rest, in hind sight one can see that it didn't work out, but it all seems very pragmatic to me.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.
I think that depends on the stability of the rest of the situation.

e.g. In the Czech Republic the president has very few powers, but they are supposed to step in if the government collapses. Czech politics being quite volatile, this happens quite frequently (I believe Václav Klaus swore in six governments in seven years or something like that), so the president in practice has quite a lot of power that he wouldn't have if the other politicians behaved themselves.

Yes, of course. I'm speaking very parochially here, about Canada's situation only.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I might go for the "no head of state at all" line.

One could always take the North Korean line, and have a corpse for one's head of state.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
One could always take the North Korean line, and have a corpse for one's head of state.

Maybe our head of state could be an actual head.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you'll read the thread, you'll see that American republicanism and the "high minded drivel" of the 14 points are said to be responsible for the fall of the German monarchy and the rise of the Nazis.

What has this got to do with my question (in response to your statement) about who had said that nationalism was Wilson's idea?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
What has this got to do with my question (in response to your statement) about who had said that nationalism was Wilson's idea?

If we're going to blame all that crap on Wilson, we might as well figure out precisely what Wilson did to cause it, eh?

I am astonished you want to argue about this rather than blaming the Nazis on American republicanism. Apparently my ideas here are even more ridiculous than that.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

I always thought that the November Revolution took place because the German powers that be thought the Kaiser had to go to satisfy the Americans but not that the monarchy itself necessarily had to go. I seem to recall that even the Social Democrats wanted a constitutional monarchy. I don't recall that in either Germany or Austria the population were never given the option to choose for a republic or to retain the monarchy. Wilhelm was a fool, but Karl was a very decent guy who did not deserve to loose his throne.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
What has this got to do with my question (in response to your statement) about who had said that nationalism was Wilson's idea?
If we're going to blame all that crap on Wilson, we might as well figure out precisely what Wilson did to cause it, eh?

I am astonished you want to argue about this rather than blaming the Nazis on American republicanism. Apparently my ideas here are even more ridiculous than that.

No. Simply that your ideas here seem to bear little resemblance to what anyone else has posted.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The German monarchy collapsed because the army and the German people alike blamed the Kaiser for the war. If any ideology had more influence it was communism, not republicanism. Mass strikes started happening in Germany before the US even entered the war.

I'd point out that the Russian monarchy had collapsed during the course of WW1, very shortly before the German one.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another good thing about a monarchy is that it is not party political. It doesn't have an agenda other than The Nation. It cannot be bought, bribed, coerced; it doesn't need to curry the voters' favour or look at opinion polls, exit polls or popularity polls. It doesn't need to get its message across or keep an eye on electability. It doesn't need to campaign or make promises.

The Monarchy is just there and a great many people trust it because it's not political.
Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.

And a powerless head of state wouldn't need to be elected by popular vote, either. In Canada, the monarch's representative, the Governor General, is now appointed by the queen on the advice of one person -- our prime minister. By convention, the queen has absolutely no say in the matter. How much different, functionally, would it be if our head of state were appointed by Parliament, or the Senate (itself an appointed body) or the Companions of the Order of Canada?

Heck, I'd even consider a hereditary symbolic head of state as long as they were Canadian and lived in Canada.

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.

The most practical if the most unlikely solution for Canadians is for us to have a hereditary monarch hanging their hat (crown?) at Rideau Hall.

In terms of powers, if a parliamentary situation requires refereeing, this will have to be done either by the head of state or their designate. As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

One of the disadvantages of the elected president in a parliamentary setting (as in Ireland) is that politics is involved in: a) the election, and b) relations with the PM of the day. In threads past I have posted about Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh's resignation and Mary Robinson's deadly campaign against Charles Haughey. Do not for a moment assume that presidencies, however ceremonial, are politics-free zones.

One of the real reasons for the relatively high (and illogical) popular fondness for monarchs is that they are not seen as politicians. Like it or lump it, the public taste for politicians as a group is not very high.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
No. Simply that your ideas here seem to bear little resemblance to what anyone else has posted.

I am trying to figure out how WW2 can be blamed on American Republicanism. The apparent connection is the "high minded drivel" of the 14 points. I am trying to work out where the high minded drivel is, and there was talk up thread about playing to nationalist aspirations. My argument here is that none of the nationalist aspirations in the 14 points are an invention of Wilson, so that can't be where the high minded drivel is. There is nothing high minded or even unrealistic about arbitrating the very nationalist aspirations that led up to the war.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I always thought that the November Revolution took place because the German powers that be thought the Kaiser had to go to satisfy the Americans but not that the monarchy itself necessarily had to go. I seem to recall that even the Social Democrats wanted a constitutional monarchy. I don't recall that in either Germany or Austria the population were never given the option to choose for a republic or to retain the monarchy. Wilhelm was a fool, but Karl was a very decent guy who did not deserve to loose his throne.

Weimar republic

You are quite right. The Americans under Wilson made it clear that peace talk conditions could only be set if a civil government was installed. See the Wikipedia article under "controlled revolution".

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Wilson demanded a civil government because the government of Germany had completely collapsed and one can hardly arbitrate with an anarchy.

It says right in that article you linked to that attempts to establish a constitutional monarchy were thwarted by furious German troops returning from the front and battles between right and left political extremists.

[ 25. October 2012, 15:57: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I further add that the US's importance in WW1 is generally exaggerated, and the United States was hardly in a position to demand the establishment of a republic all on its own little self. No one stood up for the German monarchy in the end, not even Germany.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

quote:

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.

I'd still prefer any of these to a British monarch.

Quite simply, I'd like to see an end to any vestige of Canada as a colony.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Lothirel posts:

quote:
True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

One of the reasons I keep on referring to the Irish presidency is that it was modelled by de Valera on how the GG of Canada operated. Dev saw that, with a presidency with powers similar to that of the GG, the links with the House of Windsor would atrophy and be easily cut.

But I can assure you that political campaigning à la Mudfrog happens with this model. I was in Ireland for the 1973 campaign between Childers and O'Higgins and it was most disagreeable. There were four presidents in my five and a half years there. I am enough in touch with Ireland and my Irish friends to know that they found ensuing elections in the 1980s and 1990s distasteful and embarrassing. There was no shortage of campaigning.

I would much rather that we have a resident monarch as we currently have, in the Canadian manner, the worst of both worlds. We have the unrepresentativenss of a hereditary monarchy allied with the transience of a president-- we have managed to build a system where we lack the longevity and non-partisan disinteredness of a monarch as well as any real choice in the matter. But, as I noted above, the best solution for us is the least likely.

In the meantime, let me repeat that an office with political powers, filled by a political process, will be political.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

quote:

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.
I'd still prefer any of these to a British monarch.

Quite simply, I'd like to see an end to any vestige of Canada as a colony.

You watched too much American TV as a kid. Evolution does not mean revolution. Schoolhouse Rock should have been banned in Canada by the CRTC.

Quebec hasn't been under French authority for 250 years as still uses French civil law, not to mention the language. The Canadian Forces' uniforms are British-inspired, head to toe. The Army proudly wears its red coats for its full dress uniform; the RCMP wears Red Serge for a reason.

Lawyers in Superior Court still gown as barristers.

Growing up does not mean abandoning your family or denying your roots. I like the monarchy. Nations don't die when they are overthrown; they die when people stop believing in them. The monarchy is a great mix of ceremony, emotion and tradition that lets people believe in the nation. Politics is what the Crown does, and for that we have the Crown's advisors, the Government.

EVERY country has pomp and ceremony, it's part and parcel of being a country.

I like Augustine's idea of saying the Act of Union and the Act of Settlement are subject to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. [Big Grin]

Just get Harry to marry a beautiful, very Catholic Quebecoise, preferably a traceable descendant of Les Filles du Roi (The King's Daughters). Not literally the daughters of Louis XIV, but women gathered in France to relieve the man-heaviness of Nouvelle France.

For full effect, said Quebecoise should have an ancestor who was a Seigneur or Army Officer who demonstrably kissed Louis XIV's arse. What? That's how things were done back in the Ancien Regime.

They can raise fluently bilingual children, split their time between Rideau Hall in Ottawa and La Citadelle in Quebec City and whatever private retreat they can find (let's assume somewhere in BC).

Long live the House of Windsor-Rideau!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The main reason the republic referendum here failed was the split between those wanting a popularly elected president (without bothering to define the powers of the office) and those proposing an electoral college comprised of all Federal parliamentarians, with a requirement for much more than a simple majority. This latter group would have given the president the same powers as the monarch, no more and no less.

Madame and I preferred this latter, minimalist model. It required little change to present legislation, required that to be elected a person needed support across the community, and did not set up an office with a power base distinct to that of the prime minister. In other words, the conflicts inherent in the present Russian and French constitutions were not there. In the result, the bickering between the 2 groups meant that the referendum failed. Little chance now of a fresh referendum getting through, and the general republican argument has vanished from the political scene.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

quote:

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.
I'd still prefer any of these to a British monarch.

Quite simply, I'd like to see an end to any vestige of Canada as a colony.
You watched too much American TV as a kid. Evolution does not mean revolution. Schoolhouse Rock should have been banned in Canada by the CRTC.

Quebec hasn't been under French authority for 250 years as still uses French civil law, not to mention the language. The Canadian Forces' uniforms are British-inspired, head to toe. The Army proudly wears its red coats for its full dress uniform; the RCMP wears Red Serge for a reason.

Lawyers in Superior Court still gown as barristers.

Growing up does not mean abandoning your family or denying your roots. I like the monarchy. Nations don't die when they are overthrown; they die when people stop believing in them. The monarchy is a great mix of ceremony, emotion and tradition that lets people believe in the nation. Politics is what the Crown does, and for that we have the Crown's advisors, the Government.

EVERY country has pomp and ceremony, it's part and parcel of being a country.

I like Augustine's idea of saying the Act of Union and the Act of Settlement are subject to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

Just get Harry to marry a beautiful, very Catholic Quebecoise, preferably a traceable descendant of Les Filles du Roi (The King's Daughters). Not literally the daughters of Louis XIV, but women gathered in France to relieve the man-heaviness of Nouvelle France.

For full effect, said Quebecoise should have an ancestor who was a Seigneur or Army Officer who demonstrably kissed Louis XIV's arse. What? That's how things were done back in the Ancien Regime.

They can raise fluently bilingual children, split their time between Rideau Hall in Ottawa and La Citadelle in Quebec City and whatever private retreat they can find (let's assume somewhere in BC).

Long live the House of Windsor-Rideau!

I'm not talking about revisionist history - let me revise my position as "removing all vestiges of colonialism from our governance." I'm quite happy to celebrate our past, but it's time to grow up and cut the apron strings.

And what is this Schoolhouse Rock of which you speak? I've never seen it, and I watched very little TV of any kind when I was a kid (1960s). That was quite a patronizing remark you made. Most of my thinking is informed by reading, and I read a lot of university-level Canadian history and politics texts in my daily work.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Lothiriel is right in one sense-- the British monarchy is not ours in a cultural or emotional sense any more. That we share it, albeit in the same way as Jamaica and Saint Lucia, is less and less comprehensible to people and not only to fans of Schoolhouse Rock (which I have never seen). I fear that I have been known to really annoy monarchist friends by saying that, while I support the institution, its foreign aspect gives it a limited life span.

We need to note that the younger Windsors are less oriented to their non-UK identity-- they don't have the multi-national consciousness required of the job. Remember how, when Prince Andrew wanted to become an ambassador for UK business, nobody bothered to think how this might be interpreted by the realms and businesses of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Barbados etc. When the Queen goes (presumably toward the end of the current century), the strong emotional connexion will largely go with her. Charles' grénola consciousness will keep him in the Canadian job but, after that.... Perhaps if we could persuade Prince Harry to marry Irshad Manji??

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I was thinking the foreignness of the monarchy for Canada was one of the prime virtues. You don't gotta keep an established Church to put the crown on their heads, you can turn off the television when they are being gobsmacked silly, but you still get commemorative crockery when one of the kicks or is born.

If you would just get rid of their power to dissolve parliament for any old reason, it would be all of the fun with none of the work.

[ 26. October 2012, 13:35: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Many seem to treat this subject so seriously for some reason.

One might observe that a presidency wouldn't have crowns and robes and THEATRE (well a different type and dull). LIke many areas of existence one might argue, the truth IS the externals.

It would be interesting, were Scottish independence to become a reality, if the Stuarts were to make a return. Dona Maria of Braganza was one such candidate. It could be really fascinating. Alex Salmond has declared his party's intention of keeping the English Sovereign, however.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I do wish France would make an effort and let His Royal Highness Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (His Majesty to us legitimists) have a go.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I do wish France would make an effort and let His Royal Highness Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (His Majesty to us legitimists) have a go.

I think that, at times during President Sarkozy's term, he would have had a fighting chance

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I do wish France would make an effort and let His Royal Highness Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (His Majesty to us legitimists) have a go.

For a republic of such (relatively) long standing France seems to possess an embarrassment of riches when it comes to royal pretenders. Might I suggest that some kind of televised competition between the various claimants would be the most amusing way to restore some form of French monarchy?

Of course there are other ways deposed royals can influence the course of their nations. The most straightforward would seem to be the path chosen by Simeon II of Bulgaria, who simply ran for (and was elected) Prime Minister after the collapse of Communism. Of course this seems to violate the primary understanding of the role of monarchy, at least as advanced on this thread, in that it involves doing work and providing direction for the nation.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Even better, the solution seen in George Bernard Shaw's play The Apple Cart.

A popular English king in the face of an awkward prime minister with republican tendencies, abdicates and goes to the polls himself. Elected to power by the people, he assumes the throne and reigns with almost absolutist powers.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Even better, the solution seen in George Bernard Shaw's play The Apple Cart.

A popular English king in the face of an awkward prime minister with republican tendencies, abdicates and goes to the polls himself. Elected to power by the people, he assumes the throne and reigns with almost absolutist powers.

A charismatic dictator with unchecked power? What could possibly go wrong? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I do wish France would make an effort and let His Royal Highness Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (His Majesty to us legitimists) have a go.
For a republic of such (relatively) long standing France seems to possess an embarrassment of riches when it comes to royal pretenders. Might I suggest that some kind of televised competition between the various claimants would be the most amusing way to restore some form of French monarchy?

It should be in Jeux Sans Frontières/It's a Knockout format. There must be plenty of really silly things to do, embarrassing costumes, gigantic feet, water, custard pies, the lot. Keith Chegwin and the Duchess of York should be the presenters.

More seriously, do any of these 'never was'es really believe they ever will be?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Interesting point. But I hope one of them will one day. And that a Shah will be retored to Iran.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Interesting point. But I hope one of them will one day. And that a Shah will be retored to Iran.

Considering the monarchies of both countries were actually the source of, rather than a bulwark against, major instability, one of them is doing perfectly fine without one, and no one but nobodies in either country misses them in the least, I'm kinda curious why.

All this romantic talk about monarchy completely forgets that a boat load of countries were desperate to get rid of theirs.

[ 27. October 2012, 13:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

ah the days when one proposed the deposed Shah as University Chancellor...

Doing well without one? The 'Supreme Ruler'..the 'Ayatollah Blah Blah'...the development of... [Killing me]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Comparing the best monarchies to the worst republics isn't as compelling an argument for monarchy as you seem to imagine.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Doing well without one? The 'Supreme Ruler'..the 'Ayatollah Blah Blah'...the development of...

I said one of them was doing well enough without one, by the by.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... while I support the institution, its foreign aspect gives it a limited life span.

We need to note that the younger Windsors are less oriented to their non-UK identity-- they don't have the multi-national consciousness required of the job... When the Queen goes (presumably toward the end of the current century), the strong emotional connexion will largely go with her. Charles' grénola consciousness will keep him in the Canadian job but, after that....

Really? You think the Queen will last until the end of the century? At 84 there's every possibility she might not last the decade out!

Secondly, did you see the reception the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge received in their recent overseas tour? The Monarchy will be every bit as popular. Don't forget, under Victoria, post Albert, the Monarch was very unpopular but it came back. There will be no diminution of popularity for the Monarch, even overseas, especially when we have King William.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... while I support the institution, its foreign aspect gives it a limited life span.

We need to note that the younger Windsors are less oriented to their non-UK identity-- they don't have the multi-national consciousness required of the job... When the Queen goes (presumably toward the end of the current century), the strong emotional connexion will largely go with her. Charles' grénola consciousness will keep him in the Canadian job but, after that....
Really? You think the Queen will last until the end of the century? At 84 there's every possibility she might not last the decade out!

Secondly, did you see the reception the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge received in their recent overseas tour? The Monarchy will be every bit as popular. Don't forget, under Victoria, post Albert, the Monarch was very unpopular but it came back. There will be no diminution of popularity for the Monarch, even overseas, especially when we have King William.

Given that the Queen Mother, pickled in gin, managed a full century, I would not be surprised if HM, who watches her diet and takes regular exercise, should not manage much more. I would not be surprised if she outlived a good number of shipmates.

Your reference to a succesful overseas tour helps prove my point. In theory, we're not overseas-- she's supposed to be our head of state. The reality is that the Queen is perhaps the only person (aside from 73 rabid monarchists here) who believes that she is not overseas and, for the majority of Canadians, the foreign-ness is the problem.

I will allow that, if William puts his time in and makes himself belieable in French, he will manage well here. I saw him and his brother some years ago at a gathering of middle and high school students in Vancouver (perhaps 10% were of British and Irish extraction--- the strong majority were Chinese, Filipino or South Asian) and they received a reception enthusiastic enough to puzzle bureaucrats, media and academics.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
ah the days when one proposed the deposed Shah as University Chancellor...

Doing well without one? The 'Supreme Ruler'..the 'Ayatollah Blah Blah'...the development of...

Which brings us back to the question of why the Shah was a "monarch" but Kim Jong-un is a "dictator"?

And I'm not sure that introducing secret police and electroshock torture would be considered a positive development by most universities.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

HM the Queen is a fluent French speaker. When her children were younger and at home, it was her custom to insist that one day a week the whole family should speak in French all day.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

A laudable practice that should be revived. Canada is the world-centre of excellence for teaching French to English-speakers. If William can manage decent French, the monarchy will be OK with a new cute royal baby.

Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :

I like to explore the mediatized Royal houses of the former Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which are so very different to the UK.

Such lines have all the trappings of Royalty and very few, if any, of the problems of Monarchy in the modern world. The dynasties of the former HRE have never completely expired and actually exisit. The idea of a monarchy disappearing is questionable when we consider families like the "Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst" who remain "Serene Highness" and as Royal as they come although they haven't ruled anything for years.

I write about funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

How marvellous. The line is there, and the blue blood, so that's all that really mattters.

That said, I can never bring myself when referring to His Majesty to say 'ex' King Constantine of Greece.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
I like to explore the mediatized Royal houses of the former Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which are so very different to the UK.

Such lines have all the trappings of Royalty and very few, if any, of the problems of Monarchy in the modern world. The dynasties of the former HRE have never completely expired and actually exisit. The idea of a monarchy disappearing is questionable when we consider families like the "Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst" who remain "Serene Highness" and as Royal as they come although they haven't ruled anything for years.

I write about funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/

Surely, if they haven't ruled anything for years and are never likely to, they aren't real monarchs. That's like the squire of some village in the West Midlands claiming to be the true king of the Hwicce.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

To go back a long way and launch a tangent...

quote:
Mind you, in my five years in Ireland, I saw four presidents come and go, including a very major presidential constitutional crisis.

No offence, but that isn't quite accurate. The Irish presidency is actually a monotonously stable institution. The only period which even comes close to what you've outlined was the early 70s, which went like this:

Eamon de Valera: came to the end of a fourteen year tenure in 1973
Erskine Childers: Took office in 1973. Died of natural causes in 1974.
Cearbhall O Dalaigh: Took office in 1974. Resigned in 1976 over constitutional issues (in literally the only remoting exciting incident in the office's entire history).
Patrick Hillery: Took office in 1976. Lasted for fourteen years.

In fact the Irish presidency is so boring that we generally forget it exists most of the time (or at least until we want someone to open a new public toilet in Borris-on-Ossory). Having lived in both the UK and the Irish Republic, I think its infinitely preferable to the monarchy, not at least because no one knows or cares about the president's spouse/children/third cousins twice removed.

[ 28. October 2012, 18:22: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Oh, and the Irish constitution also contains a clause which confines the presidency to octogenarians, Protestants and women called Mary.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
To go back a long way and launch a tangent...

quote:
Mind you, in my five years in Ireland, I saw four presidents come and go, including a very major presidential constitutional crisis.
No offence, but that isn't quite accurate. The Irish presidency is actually a monotonously stable institution. The only period which even comes close to what you've outlined was the early 70s, which went like this:

Eamon de Valera: came to the end of a fourteen year tenure in 1973
Erskine Childers: Took office in 1973. Died of natural causes in 1974.
Cearbhall O Dalaigh: Took office in 1974. Resigned in 1976 over constitutional issues (in literally the only remoting exciting incident in the office's entire history).
Patrick Hillery: Took office in 1976. Lasted for fourteen years.

In fact the Irish presidency is so boring that we generally forget it exists most of the time (or at least until we want someone to open a new public toilet in Borris-on-Ossory). Having lived in both the UK and the Irish Republic, I think its infinitely preferable to the monarchy, not at least because no one knows or cares about the president's spouse/children/third cousins twice removed.

I am not offended, but I am puzzled: indeed, your list in the second paragraph directly contradicts your statement.

While it is not typical of the 70 years of the Irish presidency, this sequence of events caused much embarrasment at the time among my Irish friends as well as local humourists (notably in Magill magazine), who used it as an example of the banana-republic life of Ireland at that period.

Second, the presidency is hardly ignored, nor ignorable (aside from Paddy Hillery's tenure, largely spent on golf courses)-- recent occupants have been very active and are well-reported and noticed. I frequently mention the cold war between Charlie Haughey and Mary Robinson and how her serenely vicious passive-aggressive tactics (which I applauded) was critical in ending his Taoiseach-ship. And who would forget Dana's presidential campaign? or Brian Lenihan's meltdown?

After a succession of eminent figures too aged to do much (Hyde, O Dalaigh) and partisan figures or party hacks, the Irish have been as fortunate in their recent presidents as the House of Windsor with its current occupant.

I do agree with Yerevan on the unfortunate effects of press attention on family members-- more for the negative effects it has on them than on any civic impact. Even Princess Anne's insistence that her kids have no titles has not spared them the attention of the press amd their distasteful soap opera fetishising of the institution (which also transfers to presidential families-- ask Chelsea Clinton or anyone descended from Joseph Kennedy).

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Oh, and the Irish constitution also contains a clause which confines the presidency to octogenarians, Protestants and women called Mary.

Haha yes. Very boring. I'll go for robes, crowns, titles and the lot every time.

If one was having Christmas dinner, one would hardly want a slab of turkey just slapped on a plate with noting else. The trimmings are most desirable.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
I like to explore the mediatized Royal houses of the former Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which are so very different to the UK.

Such lines have all the trappings of Royalty and very few, if any, of the problems of Monarchy in the modern world. The dynasties of the former HRE have never completely expired and actually exisit. The idea of a monarchy disappearing is questionable when we consider families like the "Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst" who remain "Serene Highness" and as Royal as they come although they haven't ruled anything for years.

I write about funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/

They may refer to themselves as "Serene Highness" but it has no official endorsement from the German State surely?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
I like to explore the mediatized Royal houses of the former Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which are so very different to the UK.

Such lines have all the trappings of Royalty and very few, if any, of the problems of Monarchy in the modern world. The dynasties of the former HRE have never completely expired and actually exisit. The idea of a monarchy disappearing is questionable when we consider families like the "Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst" who remain "Serene Highness" and as Royal as they come although they haven't ruled anything for years.

I write about funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
They may refer to themselves as "Serene Highness" but it has no official endorsement from the German State surely?

I am reliably informed by a hiking acquaintance whose firm calves and clear complexion testify to her membership of the house of Saxe-Somethingburg that Germany officialdom may not take note of their titles. Accordingly, titles are part of their given name when their births are registered, so that one will be Honey Boo-boo Prinzessin von Arkansas, with von Arkansas being the surname. Some people have managed to get the title incorporated into their surname with the connivance of friendly (loyal, or perhaps just anti-Prussian) officials, so you will have Tagg Graf von Palin zu Wasilla, whose given name will just be Tagg, and the rest a family name.

Another acquaintance, a teacher from Hanover, has a member of the House of Cobourg in her 4th form who does not use the "von" in class, although it is on her official forms. The teacher does not think that anyone uses her title, but "everybody knows." She is, in any case, a good student and her parents asked that no leeway at all be given her.

I gather from the media that the Wittelsbachs in Bavaria still retain a semi-official status, recognized by state authorities, undertaking minor official duties with police escorts and salutes etc etc, but I've not seen that confirmed. The Bavarian royal family behaved with decency during the war, unlike some houses where portraits of senior members in Nazi regalia have to be hidden from public view.

For what it's worth, they drop the titles should they become Canadian citizens. While there is always a theoretical possibility that cabinet could permit the use of a royal or princely title, I would bet any amount of money that no serious consideration would be given to any such application. A Canadian senator with an Italian title asked for a formal opinion on whether or not she could use it, and she got her clarification (negative).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I don't think there's anything to stop anyone using any title here as long as it isn't a UK one - which of course have actual rights, duties and consequences - and they aren't trying to pass themselves of as someone else who is really is entitled to that name. This means that if you are a social climber, you must choose a foreign title to award yourself.

If one wants to avoid mockery, it is best not to choose 'Count'.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think there's anything to stop anyone using any title here as long as it isn't a UK one - which of course have actual rights, duties and consequences - and they aren't trying to pass themselves of as someone else who is really is entitled to that name. This means that if you are a social climber, you must choose a foreign title to award yourself.

If one wants to avoid mockery, it is best not to choose 'Count'.

There are a number of residents of the UK who have foreign titles. These are usually the citizens or subjects of another nation which may or may not, officially recognise the title. Clearly these titles are used if it is the holders wish, as it is polite to use the form of address desired by the person.

In the UK anyone can call themselves anything they like, as long it is not meant to deceive or to gain financial reward fraudulently.

However offically recognised titles are somewhat different. There is a system which registers and regulates them.

As with medals, anyone can make up a bit of bling (even the esteemed Royal British Legion has done that in issuing commemorative 'National Service medals') but these have no offical standing. It is strictly forbidden to wear such items on a British military uniform. Neither is it permissble to wear legitimately awarded foreign decorations, unless the Sovereign has granted permission. This happens only VERY rarely. This has happened with NATO awards given for service in the Balkans. The ISAF medal awarded to international troops in Afghanistan cannot be worn by UK personnel and is usally thrown into a draw or pinned on their teddy bears. A legitimate campaign medal is issued instead with the Queen head on it.

Norman St John Sevas once turned up to something when he was a minister wearing the Order of St Lazarus. The Queen actually said to him 'what on earth is THAT?' to the amusement of bystanders.

Later, he received a letter from the Lord Chamberlain's department saying it was not to be worn again on offical occasions or on any British military base. I never saw him wear it again.

People who buy 'Lordships of the manor' are foolish if they think it makes them 'Lords' or 'peers'.

To end, one is reminded of the words (I think) of Charles II to a bumptious and rude courtier:

Laughing, the King said: 'I can make you a nobleman whenever I like; but even your Sovereign cannot make you a gentleman.'

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

There is, most interestingly, the Barons de Longueuil, the only Title of Nobility in Canada with official standing. It was granted by Louis XIV and it's still recognized. The title is held by Michael Grant, a Scotsman who is a third cousin of the late Queen Mother.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

And then there's the notorious Conrad Black, Baron of Crossharbour, who had to renounce his Canadian citizenship in 2001 in order to accept his British title (he had been a dual Canadian and British citizen).

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Still on a Canadian note, Mr Ken Thomson of Toronto, a reclusive millionaire who controls much media is known as Lord Thomson of Fleet in the United Kingdom.

I know of the current Marquess of Ely. I went to Kindergarten with his youngest brother, when they were plain Masters. Their father acceded to the title on the extinction of a senior line of his house. His daughter was latterly a bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Toronto.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Further to the above, I regret that I had forgotten that the 2nd Lord Thomson shuffled off his mortal coil some years back, and his son David now has custody of the family multi-billions (Thomson-Reuters). He is, of course, the 3rd Baron of that ancient line, created for his grandfather in 1964.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

Ah, yes, Ann Tottenham (daughter of Marquess of Ely) -- I met her at an induction service at our church just yesterday!

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

This is getting boring. So just to stir it up (not that I don't mean it): There is not and never has been any such thing as a legitimate monarch. The only true sovereignty belongs to the people, and anyone who claims it in their own right is a usurper.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
This is getting boring. So just to stir it up (not that I don't mean it): There is not and never has been any such thing as a legitimate monarch. The only true sovereignty belongs to the people, and anyone who claims it in their own right is a usurper.

That's part of the Coronation ceremony - the acclamation by the people. Therefore, once crowned the monarch is legitimate.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Have you tried acclaiming someone who is not pre-selected by birth ? Did you manage to avoid a civil war ?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Have you tried acclaiming someone who is not pre-selected by birth ? Did you manage to avoid a civil war ?

Often folks got the war out of the way first, before doing the acclamation.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

So, T. the O., King Haakon VII of Norway, or the notable WilliamandMary (William III) of England were not legitimate because their elections were fraud?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

One can also argue that Juan Carlos of Spain was elected, or perhaps more precisely, confirmed by election, with the 1978 referendum. That, at least, was the position taken by the Government of the Spanish Republic (in exile, in Mexico), which then turned the seals of the republic to him for safekeeping.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
This is getting boring. So just to stir it up (not that I don't mean it): There is not and never has been any such thing as a legitimate monarch. The only true sovereignty belongs to the people, and anyone who claims it in their own right is a usurper.
That's part of the Coronation ceremony - the acclamation by the people. Therefore, once crowned the monarch is legitimate.

But if i shouted loudly, during the acclamation, that i didn't agree, I'd be thrown out of the abbey.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

OK, a reminder not to post while drinking. So to elaborate and clarify... The conditions that make a government legitimate:

1. Its powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
2. That consent is revocable (while no particular mechanism is required, regular elections have been the best demonstrated so far).
3. The principle of majority rule determines both consent and other matters.
4. The franchise is extended to all competent adults.
5. The rights of minorities are protected, especially those rights that might enable minorities to win others over to their way of thinking and so become majorities (e.g., freedom of speech, association, and assembly).

I've probably left out a couple of things, but on the whole I'd consider a government legitimate to the extent it embodies those principles.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I think most Commonwealth and European monarchies meet Tim the Obscure's tests, particularly as he has not insisted on a specific mechanism for withdrawal of consent.

Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :

We've talked a lot about the idea of Monarchy and Enoch has questioned the ability of a Monarchy to survive over time without actually ruling over a geographical territory.

However, I want to raise the idea of a Monarchy without territoriality or a monarchy with a limited claim to territoriality. The Order of Saint John of Malta (SMOM) is one idea of a Monarchy that defies the usual ideas of Monarchy and yet the Grand Master holds the title of "Prince" with a break in the succession. The Papacy has a similar claim to a limited land mass. Similarly, Monaco has survived without much land although with an adoptive succession at one point.

Could we argue that an ordination to the priesthood and a consecrated Monarch amount to a similar process. When a Monarch has the oil applied is s/he the chosen of God? Can that consecration survive through time and defy the judgement of history? [Overused]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is the Grand Master of the Order of St John the sovereign of Malta with any day to day role at all in the day to day affairs of that country?

Yes, he may be able to issue stamps. But does the Pope's main significance in 2012 derive from the fact that he is head of state of a small area of Rome called Vatican City?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is the Grand Master of the Order of St John the sovereign of Malta with any day to day role at all in the day to day affairs of that country?

Yes, he may be able to issue stamps. But does the Pope's main significance in 2012 derive from the fact that he is head of state of a small area of Rome called Vatican City?

Apparently he chairs the council and deals directly with department heads. In any case, the Sovereign Order of Malta appears to be a republic. That the president-for-life is called the Grand Master is not relevant (We need to remember that SMOM postage is not universally recognized, as it is not in the UPU. A clerical acquaintance studying in Rome discovered this, as his mail went to Canada, but not to the US). The head of the Venetian republic was entitled the Doge, but he was still president-for-life, albeit with restricted powers. Kim Jong Um is theoretically the Chairman of the Presidium but, by some definitions, he is a monarch, even if Korea is a republic. You figure it out.

There is an argument that the Vatican City State is also an ecclesiastical republic, given that the Bishop of Rome is elected. The only other ecclesiastical head of state is the Dalai Lama, but he seems to have retired his power to an exile assembly.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think there's anything to stop anyone using any title here as long as it isn't a UK one - which of course have actual rights, duties and consequences - and they aren't trying to pass themselves of as someone else who is really is entitled to that name. This means that if you are a social climber, you must choose a foreign title to award yourself.

If one wants to avoid mockery, it is best not to choose 'Count'.

Or ideally get a foreign title awarded to you as a cousin of one of my Irish Catholic 18th century ancestors did from the Empress Maria Therese. For good measure I strongly suspected he created a mostly fictitious ancestry going back to a patrilineal ancestor who came over with William the Conqueror and who married a French princess; threw an accent into the name to make it D'Alton instead of Dalton (though that might have been a somewhat earlier ancestor); got several of his kin ennobled also; and got a royal license from George III to use the title, Count, in Britain. It didn't work out well for him.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0