Benedict XVI
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 119
- City
- North East Somewhere
- Country
- United States
What is your favorite type of monarchy? Constitutional , absolute, etc. leave an example of the type you like the best.
Absolute monarchy seems to work well in the small countries like Monaco and Lichtenstein.
There are several countries that have had a form of elective monarchy where the ruling royal family has died out. Sweden and Greece comes to mind. However, the new royal line has not been voted on in what we today consider a democratic manner but rather chosen by a small group of influencial people. In today's world, if you had to campaign and run for the position as the King/Queen than you basically have the same as a President.What would an elective British Monarchy look like? Would it fly? Are there any current elective monarchies operating anywhere?
This idea of an elective monarchy was raised recently and it's gotten me curious. How would it work - would the royal family elect the next heir, or would it be that the sovereign would designate their heir? I assume this does not mean the 'election' is a full scale 'democratic' election with the populace involved - or is it?
Elective British Monarchy would be like presidency everywhere else.
It would be quite pointless; better abolish Monarchy altogether.
In today's world, if you had to campaign and run for the position as the King/Queen than you basically have the same as a President.
Is that the case always, though, or just where arranged like that? There have been lots of monarchies where the heir was chosen by the reigning sovereign - China comes to mind.
The above scenario would allow a royal family - perhaps in council, not just the current King or Queen - to choose that person from the next generation (or even same generation) that most exhibits the requisite attributes and willingness to fulfill the function.
This might truly be a more modern way to address the function of sovereign.
Another problem I foresee with the scenario: what would the prospective heirs be doing until the time comes for one of them to succeed to the Throne? They would effectively be in a limbo, unable to pursue normal life, but never certain they'll ascend to the Throne. And once one of them does succeed, where would the others be left?
I don't see the point, an elective monarchy diminishes the history.
Why are you picking on the British Monarchy? Why not every monarchy? Sorry if I sound harsh but it feels like you are picking on the BRF.
Yes, but where would the British Heirs "reign" till their time comes? Even if there are, say, only 5 prospective candidates, it would mean one had to wait 16 years till his/her time comes. What would they be doing in the meantime?Unless they did do it like the Malaysians, who have a King reign for 4 or 8 years from each state within the country. The respective heirs or future Kings do work in their own state before following in their fathers footsteps. It makes good sense to me, and worked well when I was over there.
Yes, but where would the British Heirs "reign" till their time comes? Even if there are, say, only 5 prospective candidates, it would mean one had to wait 16 years till his/her time comes. What would they be doing in the meantime?
Yes, but where would the British Heirs "reign" till their time comes? Even if there are, say, only 5 prospective candidates, it would mean one had to wait 16 years till his/her time comes. What would they be doing in the meantime?
In Malaysia, they just reign in their own state. Saudi Royals are rich and influential enough to support all of their extended family members, heirs or not. But personally I can't see British taxpayers supporting all the prospective Kings and Queens, along with their families.
Technically, Britain had a tradition of electing Monarchs as well; Anglo-Saxon Kings used to be elected by a meeting of wise men - Witenagemot. However, that tradition hasn't existed for over a thousand years, and I don't see it resurrected. If the main tradition of any of the current Monarchies - hereditary rule - is put to rest, the point of Monarchy is lost.
To elect a King or Queen? Well why not elect a President?
Why look to fix something when it isn't broke...
The topic of popularity cannot logically be considered for the popularity of any head of state is, from time to time, examined. Oddly enough, however, the presence of a royal head of state appears to inspire a greater sense of national pride/unity than most other forms of sovereign representation. They are, for the most part, above politics. Making then the position of monarch a political one by way of election, again, way too create a most questionable fracas.
What would you elect them to do? Cut ribbons, have charities, be rich, make no decisions, attend functions? Monarchies, today, are window dressing. Why would you elect them?
Well, as I've been suggesting, not a general election. More along the lines of an election - or choosing - within the royal family.
Potentially it is broke
Why make captive an individual to the circumstances of his or her birth? Isn't that a kind of slavery, albeit one in a gilded cage?
What if
...on those caught in the system who would prefer another path for themselves
I see it as incredibly functional and worthwhile and not at all broke.
Because ultimately, there still remains choice. Edward had a choice and he made it. His brother was proclaimed King and the monarchy went from strength to strength. There is an undoubted method in the, as some would no doubt suggest, "madness", and it works most effectively and efficiently.
What if, indeed.
Again, this is why there is procedure in place to deal with such an issue. And let us not speak of it flippantly or lightly for no one would abdicate such responsibility lightly. It would undoubtedly be a process of considered thought and consultation. Certainly in this day and age.
Perhaps because you don't have to live the life. One factor that stands out for me is how intensely the royals' lives are controlled - in a sense - by their subjects. The 'ownership' can seem pleasant enough - but ask any celebrity who finds themselves with a large and devout fan base, and they will tell you it is no way to live.
That's new - because what I have gotten in the course of conversations here and there is that the monarchy will not survive another abdication crisis. You bring a different sensibility to the matter.
You didn't answer the proposition.
Just to say, I don't think anyone on this thread has been flippant. Its been a very interesting conversation and I'm grateful to those who have engaged.
Elected by a small group of influential people, not the whole country. This was in the days before the Stuarts came to the throne. In the history books I read on it, the monarch was elected every generation. The "Stuarts" were not monarchs at that time, but were "Hereditary Stewards", which I suppose is like a Prime Minister. There was some worry about making a Stuart king, I read, in the history book, because the Stuarts did not have much Flemish blood, and the king-makers were highly Flemish (book did not explain). However, when a Stewart married Marjorie Bruce, son of " Robert the Bruce', and had a son who had some Flemish blood, then the idea stuck of having a hereditary Stuart king.
Incidentally Marjorie Bruce died from a fall off a horse while pregnant, and a Caesarian was performed to save her child, in a monastery near where she fell.
I hope this is accurate--it is what I read when I was researching history of that time, looking for my ancestors who were followers of the Stuarts.