18 replies to this topic

[Guyverman1990]

Hi guys, Guyverman here.

Bye the way, for those of you who know your history, the 20th century saw the disestablishment of several centuries-old monarchies around the world :

• The Chinese Monarchy
  
• The Korean Monarchy
  
• The Russian Monarchy
  
• The Germain Monarchy
  
• The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
  
• The Egyptian Monarchy
  
• The Persian Monarchy
  
• The Italian Monarchy
  
• The Indian Monarchy

I'm assuming that this century will see the end of several other monarchies around the world. So far, Nepal's own monarchy faced a unfortunately bloody end. If any monarchies discontinue within the next 100 years, which ones do you think it will most likely be?

I think if the USA slowly declines as a world power, leaving China to fill its shows and Fusion power along with other renewable sources cuts down humanity's dependance on those who run industries based around fossil fuels such as the Saudi Dynasty. This could mean that if the Saudis faces a shortage of oil and the United States government gradually looses the ability to back them, along with growing democratic power in the region because of the Arab Spring This will be a factor that will pressure the Dynasty to leave power.

Apparently, The heir apparent to the Thai throne is a very unpopular man with the Thai public because he is little more than an egotistical playboy who the people greatly do not want to be represented by. If he does not change his ways once he enters the throne, Thailand's populace may be only able to withstand it for so long and boot him out, leaving the options of letting either his daughter take the throne or put an end to the monarchy entirely.

Edited by Guyverman1990, 21 May 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[KingstonDon]

How about the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan? Do you foresee any circumstance in which they'd be willing to leave power?

If I'm correct Jordan has a measure of political stability and a constitutional monarchy in place. During the Arab Spring, they enacted some reforms to prevent major unrest, thus safeguarding themselves from a major upheaval that could dramatically destabilise the country... as evidenced by the failure of its neighbour Syria.

[Nick1984]

I still don't get why Japan has an emporer...





WHERE'S THE EMPIRE!?!?!?

[KingstonDon]

Well, strictly speaking the denotation "empire" and emperor don't have to be connected. While usually the ruler of an "empire" is an emperor, an emperor needn't be the ruler of a country whose name includes "empire" as it is merely an adjunct title to denote prestige "of sorts".

The Japanese Emperor gets his title because his post and descent was seen as being above "mere" Kings, similar to the "Shah-an-shah" (King-of-kings) title of the rulers of Persia.
Strictly speaking in that sense, every other monarch on this planet doesn't have the authority to directly meet with The Emperor on a state visit as their title is not on equal footing. (Not observed anymore)

As a simple example, the Prince of Belgium may not meet with The Queen of England, The King of the Belgians may do so however.

[MarcZ]

For certain countries, in particular Canada, I could see them removing the monarchy as the head of state in the coming 30 years, as the amount of Canadians questioning the role and cost of the monarchy in Canadian society grows.

[Nick1984]

I think half of Australians want a republic now, up 20% in a decade apparently.

I think if Charles becomes king instead of William alot of people will fall out of love with the monarchy. We could even see a Republic of Jamaica before the year's out.

[Guyverman1990]

Another factor that could lead to the British Monarchy's collapse is if Scotland achieves independence.

Britain will loose a lot of money from no longer controlling the land and the amount of money deemed necessary on further stabilization of country will go towards the Royalty, which will lead even more people to loose interest in supporting it.

[Italian Ufo]

monarchy....it is absolutely pathetic...

[Logically Irrational]

I'm interested in learning about this. What is the general public opinion on the monarchy? I've heard varying accounts. It doesn't seem to be very popular on this site...

[SG-1]

Democracy is the way to go. Have amendments, evolve the government to suit a particular group of people. Monarchy is a primitive government.

Edited by SG-1, 22 May 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[Logically Irrational]

As with all forms of government, monarchy has some attributes that make me think that it would do fine in an ideal world. But of course we are far from living in an ideal world. I'd probably take SG-1's stance here. Some countries are currently better suited for monarchy, but that doesn't make it the perfect system for them in the long run.

[Guyverman1990]

Let's say there was a Republic of Arabia. Would it be more than likely to consist of more than just present-day Saudi Arabia? It would likely also include Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and maybe even Yemen and Iraq.

[CallMeKari]

I think the British monarchy will slowly fall apart as Canada, Australia, etc. decide they no longer want anything to do with them. Then Charles taking over when Liz dies will be the real turning point. No one likes that guy.

I don't anything about others except a little about Jordan. I think it'll last as long as Abdullah and Rania are in. From what I hear they're decent people.

[Guyverman1990]

http://www.forbes.co...lcome_mjx.shtml

Looks like the Arab Spring will next come to Kuwait. Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is an absolute monarchy and if it succeeds, the time will start ticking for the Saudi Dynasty.

[Owl]

monarchy....it is absolutely pathetic...

This, completely. In the 21st century, I can't understand why people still cling onto such an unfair and unequal institution.

[LowLevelFunctionary]

I'm very much in favour of constitutional monarchies. Having impartial and non-political figures that act in the national interest allow for a level of stability and unity that Republics can only dream of. In Britain, the Soverign plays a vital constitutional role - preventing any particular section of society - whether it's the government or army - from becoming too powerful. This maintains our democratic institutions and the marvelous stability and measured progression we've experienced since the civil war. I'd be very surprised if the monarchy didn't still exist in Britain 100 years from now.

Perhaps Australia and Jamaica are the two most likely candidates for a transition to Republic - but even then I can see it being a much closer call than some of you seem to think. I'm fairly certain that Canada will retain the monarchy - it gives them a greater sense of history, closer ties to Europe and the Commonwealth, the advantages of a non-partisan head of state, and makes them stand out from the Americans.

[Raklian]

I'm very much in favour of constitutional monarchies. Having impartial and non-political figures that act in the national interest allow for a level of stability and unity that Republics can only dream of. In Britain, the Soverign plays a vital constitutional role - preventing any particular section of society - whether it's the government or army - from becoming too powerful. This maintains our democratic institutions and the marvelous stability and measured progression we've experienced since the civil war. I'd be very surprised if the monarchy didn't still exist in Britain 100 years from now.

Perhaps Australia and Jamaica are the two most likely candidates for a transition to Republic - but even then I can see it being a much closer call than some of you seem to think. I'm fairly certain that Canada will retain the monarchy - it gives them a greater sense of history, closer ties to Europe and the Commonwealth, the advantages of a non-partisan head of state, and makes them stand out from the Americans.

 

You're assuming this Soverign will always be a benign one. What happens if she or he isn't?

[LowLevelFunctionary]

I'm very much in favour of constitutional monarchies. Having impartial and non-political figures that act in the national interest allow for a level of stability and unity that Republics can only dream of. In Britain, the Soverign plays a vital constitutional role - preventing any particular section of society - whether it's the government or army - from becoming too powerful. This maintains our democratic institutions and the marvelous stability and measured progression we've experienced since the civil war. I'd be very surprised if the monarchy didn't still exist in Britain 100 years from now.

Perhaps Australia and Jamaica are the two most likely candidates for a transition to Republic - but even then I can see it being a much closer call than some of you seem to think. I'm fairly certain that Canada will retain the monarchy - it gives them a greater sense of history, closer ties to Europe and the Commonwealth, the advantages of a non-partisan head of state, and makes them stand out from the Americans.

 

You're assuming this Soverign will always be a benign one. What happens if she or he isn't?

 

British constitutional convention and the codified constitutions of Commonwealth realms provide checks and balances that sufficiently answer to the unlikely event of a Sovereign attempting an illegitimate move.  I can't speak for all monarchies and countries, but this is an issue which would simply not arise for us.

 

While many on here seem to be chastising monarchies, they do so without considering that the vast majority of oppressed peoples and leaders with unbenign aims live in republics.

Edited by LowLevelFunctionary, 17 December 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[Demo]

I say this as a Briton.

 

I like our monarchy. Some pro points:

 

Brings in money.

Protects a lot of green land which in a small country with a big population is hard to do.

Gives us a strong tie with the entire commonwealth.

Allows the use of titles/orders (KBE, OBE, Sir, etc.)

Allows the use of 'Royal' prefixes

 

 

In theory she, like the House of Lords, works to counter the parliament from getting too far out of hand. Unlike politicians she does not have to fight to get elected, she does however have to stay popular or she will be abolished, this is a very good thing as it means there is no place for corruption.