• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Monarchy

Lovebug

Lovebug

Be humble and kind
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
43,262
Reaction score
31,920
Location
TN, please help
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
After watching some footage on tv, I came to wonder why kings and queens are still held in such high regard. Why do people make such fuzz over them? Is it comparable to idolizing celebrities?
What purpose do these blue bloods serve really?
 
Lovebug said:
After watching some footage on tv, I came to wonder why kings and queens are still held in such high regard. Why do people make such fuzz over them? Is it comparable to idolizing celebrities?
What purpose do these blue bloods serve really?
Click to expand...

In an ideal situation, they represent the nation while being completely separate from the politics. They have no power attached to their position but the respect they receive is respect paid to the history and traditions of the nation.
To a diehard republican yes, they're a waste of time and money but to a monarchist they're a valuable link to the history.
 
In a way they represent the spirit of the nation but they are kind of like celebrities to a lot of people.
 
Grand Mal said:
In an ideal situation, they represent the nation while being completely separate from the politics. They have no power attached to their position but the respect they receive is respect paid to the history and traditions of the nation.
To a diehard republican yes, they're a waste of time and money but to a monarchist they're a valuable link to the history.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you mention party? It was a general question.
 
Lovebug said:
After watching some footage on tv, I came to wonder why kings and queens are still held in such high regard. Why do people make such fuzz over them? Is it comparable to idolizing celebrities?
What purpose do these blue bloods serve really?
Click to expand...

They serve the only purpose that matters. To the greedy they are a supply of wealth. To the public they are entertainment.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/11/royal-intrigue-sustains-celebrity-magazines-as-reality-stars-lose-appeal
Love Island may have been the surprise television hit of the summer, but interest in reality TV stars in Britain is showing signs of waning while intrigue surrounding the royal family reaches record levels.

The latest circulation figures show sales of celebrity magazines are slumping, and the editor of one of the market leaders has questioned the longevity of reality TV personalities.

While the stars of this year’s Love Island may soon disappear from viewers’ minds, Rosie Nixon, the editor-in-chief of Hello!, said interest in the royals had reached an unprecedented level thanks to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.
Click to expand...

They're the best paid clowns in the world and are there for your entertainment.
 
Lovebug said:
Not sure why you mention party? It was a general question.
Click to expand...

I didn't. A capital-R Republican is a member of a party, a small-r republican holds a political loyalty to a republic as a form of government.
 
Lovebug said:
After watching some footage on tv, I came to wonder why kings and queens are still held in such high regard. Why do people make such fuzz over them? Is it comparable to idolizing celebrities?
What purpose do these blue bloods serve really?
Click to expand...

Consolation prize for the affects of inbreeding?

I dunno. I've never understood it. Just "the way things are," I suppose.
 
Grand Mal said:
In an ideal situation, they represent the nation while being completely separate from the politics. They have no power attached to their position but the respect they receive is respect paid to the history and traditions of the nation.
To a diehard republican yes, they're a waste of time and money but to a monarchist they're a valuable link to the history.
Click to expand...

Holland and Denmark are good examples of that.
 
Lovebug said:
After watching some footage on tv, I came to wonder why kings and queens are still held in such high regard. Why do people make such fuzz over them? Is it comparable to idolizing celebrities?
What purpose do these blue bloods serve really?
Click to expand...

Mature peoples in developed countries should choose their heads of state. I am a republican twice over, hoping that the monarchies in both my countries, Britain and Sweden, will be abolished. Before too long (maybe) Charles the Foolish will be King; a joke in very poor taste.
 
Sweden said:
Mature peoples in developed countries should choose their heads of state. I am a republican twice over, hoping that the monarchies in both my countries, Britain and Sweden, will be abolished. Before too long (maybe) Charles the Foolish will be King; a joke in very poor taste.
Click to expand...

In may countries while the monarchy have no influence or rule in politics technically speaking, they are the safe guard in case a politic collapse. Like in Spain where the King dissolved the entire parliament duo to the corruption, and called for new elections.

Many counties without monarchs have the same like in Germany, where there is a President who has no big role politically speaking but is the one who will take control in case a political collapse and call for new election, to avoid an other Hitler coming to power.

A part from that Monarchs are just an other kind of elite among others that survive on the top of society from nation taxation and work because they have a symbolic role and historical influence for people and their nation.
 
C R O I X said:
In may countries while the monarchy have no influence or rule in politics technically speaking, they are the safe guard in case a politic collapse. Like in Spain where the King dissolved the entire parliament duo to the corruption, and called for new elections.

Many counties without monarchs have the same like in Germany, where there is a President who has no big role politically speaking but is the one who will take control in case a political collapse and call for new election, to avoid an other Hitler coming to power.

A part from that Monarchs are just an other kind of elite among others that survive on the top of society from nation taxation and work because they have a symbolic role and historical influence for people and their nation.
Click to expand...

In Sweden the King has no remaining political power. Not in the event of government collapse or in any other circumstance. In the UK the Queen has, notionally, some power but she has never used it. She broke her coronation oath by ceding her people's sovereignty to a foreign power, the EU and its predecessors; for this she should never be forgiven.
 
Sweden said:
In Sweden the King has no remaining political power. Not in the event of government collapse or in any other circumstance. In the UK the Queen has, notionally, some power but she has never used it. She broke her coronation oath by ceding her people's sovereignty to a foreign power, the EU and its predecessors; for this she should never be forgiven.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that she could have stopped it.

Nota bene: The German high court ruled that the Lisbon Treaty is only constitutional, if it has final say over constitutional matters and not the EU court. This ist noteworthy, because one of the most important points in the EU/UK Brexit negotiations is that of the sovereignty of the European court over UK courts. At least this is, what Barnier said.
 
joG said:
I am not sure that she could have stopped it.

Nota bene: The German high court ruled that the Lisbon Treaty is only constitutional, if it has final say over constitutional matters and not the EU court. This ist noteworthy, because one of the most important points in the EU/UK Brexit negotiations is that of the sovereignty of the European court over UK courts. At least this is, what Barnier said.
Click to expand...

The Queen could have refused to sign legislation which made EU courts superior to English courts. This would have led to a constitutional crisis; what the outcome would have been we will never know. Imo the Queen was guilty of moral cowardness.

The position of the English so-called 'Supreme' Court differs from that of the German High Court. The former acknowledges the supremacy of EU law and courts.
 
Sweden said:
In Sweden the King has no remaining political power. Not in the event of government collapse or in any other circumstance. In the UK the Queen has, notionally, some power but she has never used it. She broke her coronation oath by ceding her people's sovereignty to a foreign power, the EU and its predecessors; for this she should never be forgiven.
Click to expand...

Be it in Sweden or England, if it happens to have a big political crisis and collapse, instead of have nothing in power until new election or dictator comes to power it will sure likely be delegated to the monarch family, no matter how powerless politically speaking they are now.
 
We don't have one, obviously, so I don't worry about it.

In the UK it is largely a matter of tradition and respect for the past, as I understand it, and if that floats their boat (and they're English, so yeah, tradition and stuff) then mo' power to 'em.

In a way, I think it isn't a bad idea to separate the actual executive of the government, and the job of doing all the ceremonial and public-relations stuff... either one can be almost a full time gig.
 
C R O I X said:
Be it in Sweden or England, if it happens to have a big political crisis and collapse, instead of have nothing in power until new election or dictator comes to power it will sure likely be delegated to the monarch family, no matter how powerless politically speaking they are now.
Click to expand...

No, not in Sweden. Not in any circumstance.
 
C R O I X said:
Be it in Sweden or England, if it happens to have a big political crisis and collapse, instead of have nothing in power until new election or dictator comes to power it will sure likely be delegated to the monarch family, no matter how powerless politically speaking they are now.
Click to expand...

How would that be possible?
 
Lovebug said:
How would that be possible?
Click to expand...

What?? The political crisis or delegation of power to monarchs?

If you are asking about the political crisis and collapse, I really have no idea how it would be possible but it is not impossible for sure.

If you are asking about giving power to monarchs, it is possible because they can be the only representation of the country and people left when people don't trust anybody else. At least temporary until next election or and sign or stabilization. I believe it is better than the army dictatorship lake Brazil had or opportunists populists like many other country had when there was nothing left but choose the less worst.
 
Last edited:
Sweden said:
No, not in Sweden. Not in any circumstance.
Click to expand...

Would you say in Sweden people would rather have a demagogic populist dictator or a army dictatorship? Because it is what comes up when the political establishment collapse.
 
Sweden said:
[...] In the UK the Queen has, notionally, some power but she has never used it. She broke her coronation oath by ceding her people's sovereignty to a foreign power, the EU and its predecessors; for this she should never be forgiven.
Click to expand...

I would not blaim the Queen, after all of the main decisions made by the EU was strongly influenced by the UK, like the adhesion of the east european countries to the block, the adhesion of Turkey to the block, polices of standards of plugs and other kinds of products to fit every country in the block and a lot of other things.

The fact is that EU is good for the big business and England has always worked for the big business. (Sorry Brits) London is the world capital of financial corruption and tax heaven for corporation. Being in the block UK had not only strongly shaped how the EU is now but also worked very well for big business.
 
Lovebug said:
After watching some footage on tv, I came to wonder why kings and queens are still held in such high regard. Why do people make such fuzz over them? Is it comparable to idolizing celebrities?
What purpose do these blue bloods serve really?
Click to expand...

British royal celebrities serve for the commonwealth to cover up the ugly face of the empire.
 
Sweden said:
The Queen could have refused to sign legislation which made EU courts superior to English courts. This would have led to a constitutional crisis; what the outcome would have been we will never know. Imo the Queen was guilty of moral cowardness.

The position of the English so-called 'Supreme' Court differs from that of the German High Court. The former acknowledges the supremacy of EU law and courts.
Click to expand...

I had noted that and found it remarkable, when the German Court ruled as it did. After all, that means that legally the largest country of the EU does not accept EU law as supreme but its own. So it is really quite odd that other countries in the EU would view their law as subsidiary and would be a significant split of the EU that would be albeit less visible much more important than say Schengen/Dublin, if a crunch came to a shove.
It is also quite amusing in its way for the EU to demand as an essential covenant of Brexit that the UK submit to European courts, when not all members accept that subservience.
 
C R O I X said:
Would you say in Sweden people would rather have a demagogic populist dictator or a army dictatorship? Because it is what comes up when the political establishment collapse.
Click to expand...

The decision to strip the Swedish monarchy of its few remaining powers was not taken by 'the people' -very little is here (on re-reading make that 'nothing'). Decisions are taken by a narrow elite, comprising the leading cliques in a few political parties, the MSM and a very few other centres of influence.

The idea of the barely existing Swedish army installing a dictatorship is hilarious - though you cannot be expected to know that.
 
Sweden said:
The decision to strip the Swedish monarchy of its few remaining powers was not taken by 'the people' -very little is here (on re-reading make that 'nothing'). Decisions are taken by a narrow elite, comprising the leading cliques in a few political parties, the MSM and a very few other centres of influence.

The idea of the barely existing Swedish army installing a dictatorship is hilarious - though you cannot be expected to know that.
Click to expand...

I think you are right generally speaking. I didn't say the choice about monarch was from people or any other group. What I am saying is that it is an available choice when something drastic happens. When I talked about army dictatorship I was not referring specific to Sweden now a days but again in general terms.

Remember that society is in constant changing and in 20, 40 or 60 Years Sweden and any other country will very likely to be very different. What Sweden is now will not remain the same forever.

Remember also that sometimes people actually choose who will be in charge despite the control of such choice of the narrow few elite before. Venezuela is an example of it. If there was a monarch family in Venezuela would people choose to give power to them instead of the militar Hugo Chaves? I suspect the answer is Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom