This thread is dedicated to arguments in favor of constitutional monarchies in comparision to republics.

If anyone knows good or often used arguments, I would be eager to read about and discuss them.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Doesnt sound very convincing as you said. They are however possible arguemnts in specific cases, why it does not pay of to put effort in changing status quo. But they dont work in favor of defending it.

Our President in Austria does exactly the same, and it works perfectly well. He is the by far most popular politician here, earned respect from all political sides (except the far rights perhaps) and is a figure of contuinity even though his term is only 6 years. Every President in the Republic who offered himself for doing a second period was also reelected, that means most of the Presidents served for 12 years so far.

No need for a monarchy here.

Sorry I dont understand. Why does the state need to be owned by someone? It is no company. The Republic is a legal entity in itself, it does not need an owner. This argument sounds totally abstract without any negative practical consequences for the Republic.
At best you could turn it into an argument against democracy in favor of absolute monarchies, but I doubt you want that, do you?

Pardon?
I dont want to bother, but also the Swedes have collective rights. I dont know if on national level but at least at the European court for Human Rights.
I cant see in which way it is bad to hold the ideals of enlightment high. By socialistic I can only see that you mean "people are equal". Do you suggest this is an disadvantage over "people are not equal"? (Some people are worth more than others)

In Austria the emperor signed a treaty without force or revolution or civil war that he recline his political powers as head of state. The first Republic of Austria was founded soon afterwards and free elections held.

Granted his empire was crumbling apart, and after WW1 that was lost he was done, but thats not the point. The monarchy held together as long as war was waged against it. All parts of the empire fought together with no guerillas against the monarchy. WWI was in no way directed from within against the monarchy.

I am sure if one looks into the history books one can find a few occasions where monarchies slowly ceased out instead of great revolutions.



PS:
Do you know the new constitution of Liechtenstein? Its the sole country in the western world whith a monarch that has so far reaching competences. The new constitution actualy increased his influence again. In times of crises he can actually run the country pretty much alone. But also during normal times he is the most powerful political figure and can vetoe any law or propose one.
The unique feature however: In case the people of Liechtenstein should be frustrated about how him, they have the right to initiate a referendum to abolish the monarchy. So he is a powerful monarch on the peoples mercy. Thats a concept that has some charme...

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Im pretty happy living under a monarchy. The members of the royal family make good diplomats and supply the gossip magazines.

Some facts about the dutch monarchy:
- they are the descendants of the german Willem of orange, who fought for the dutch in the "eighty year's war" (1568 to 1648) against the spanish. until the french occupation they were powerful "city governours" in the republic of the nertherlands, sometimes having the same amount of national power as monarchs. After the short french occupation some international conventions made city governour Willem V the first king of the "united kingdom of the netherlands", which became simply the kingdom of the netherlands it is today after riots, encouraged by the french and belgian upper class, caused belgium and luxembourg to become independant states.
- the power they hold now mainly influences the formation of the governement. The king or queen appoints a politician who talks to the parties and forms a governement.
- Laws (after they are approved by the 2 houses of parliament) must be signed by the king or queen in order to become effective. This means that he or she has a veto power. But this power has never been used since 1848 when the netherlands became a constitutional monarchy.

I do think my queen should change her haircut.


Yes she always looks like that

this is my future king, Willem IV (or William or Wilhelm), his wife from argentina and their two daughters (so we'll have yet another queen after him).


the netherlands certainly has a great history, it even was the most powerful nation with the largest navy and largest amount of colonies in the 17th century. Unfortunately because of french-english-german collaboration half of the colonies were stolen and the country was split in two.

Coming from a country with a president in the lead instead of a king I don't get why the royals are so admired. Of course theres the tradition element, but when I hear the king of Sweden driving around in a ferrari, I just think that isn't it a big waste of taxpayers money? Do they need all that money and assets?

I can also understand the PR value of sending a King/Queen to some foreign country, to improve relations.

Well, the only one I can come up with is Otto von Habsburg Lothringen. The claiment of the Austrian throne if it should be reintroduced anytime soon. (He is the very son of the last emperor but already in his late 90's, so I guess he does not prepare for such a case anymore )

Funny... an NPR interview of Otto von Habsburg: NPR : Otto Von Habsburg on EU Expansion



Photo with his parents:


And with Franz Jospeh, who ruled the Austrian empire for over 60 years.



PS:
I read that the Austrofascists tried to reintroduce a constitutional monarchy with Otto as emperor or at least king. The did not because they feared an invasion. Not only by Nazi Germany. No, get that... it seems also from Czechoslovakia. Wow.
It seems a slogan back then in the Czechoslovakia was: We prefer Hitler over Habsburg. It seems they feared that Austria might claim Czechoslovakia again as soon as the monarchy would be restored in Austria.

... I guess they changed their mind about the slogan however in the meanwhile.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

1. The 'unwritten constitution' of the British tradition is a superior model to 'constitutionalism' in that written constitutions are inflexible and very difficult to adapt or modify in any substantive way once created. Unwritten constitutions can be modified or adapted when necessary or when circumstances change.

2. Under constitutional governments, the only rights you have are the ones that are specifically deliniated in the constitution. Under the principle of monarchism adapted for constitutional principles in theory, all rights theoretically exist, save only those that are prescribed by law.

I am no fan of constitutionalism (of which republicanism is dependent upon). Constitutional monarchism does not require an actual 'formal constitution' which gives the system dynamic flexibility.

Unfortunately, I think monarchs need a 1000 years of history to give the system a measure of reality instead of artifice. If you don't have an existing 1000 year old monarchy, I can't imagine bothering to create one.

My principle argument against the British Crown is that they are vulgar and middle class (and thus not worthy of any particular respect). Any king that stands in public without a crown, ermine and purple doesn't deserve any respect at all. They are fake. Kings wear their majesty, not banker's suits.

That sounds like that "unwritten constitution" is open for total arbitrariness. The quality of law (and also constitutions), is that reduces the level of possible arbitrariness of those who excert power.
If your "unwritten constitution" would be really as flexible as you claim, it would has no reason to exist. As good as it would be no "unwritten constitution" at all.

Btw, constitutions can be changed as well, if it is really needed. But it needs in many country a referendum if the heart of it is changed. And this is good so, as its the only mean you can prevent a democracy turning into dictatorship overnight.

And last but not least, your "unwritten constitution" principally works like a real one, just in a far more complicated and totally intransparent way.
I always thought that the subjects of the queen have no rights apart from those that are granted. ...
But anyway, in the end it doesnt matter, even those subjects of the Queen are subject of the European charta of Human Rights as well.

I cant see a practical case where such a great flexibility (=arbitrariness) in the constution would be an advantage. I see however plenty of case where it is a disadvantage.

There is hardly a house that ruled that long in the world. If there is one at all. The oldest monarchy is the one the pope leads. But theres no house behind and its an electable monarch, but nontheless the last absolute one left in Europe. (and the last christian theocracy left in the world)

One of the longest ruling houses in Europe was the one of the Habsburger with over 600 years. I am unclear if there are perhaps still people in Hungary who might favor a Habsburg king again. In Austria however chances go towards zero. Its probably as soon as people once experience a working Republic that they start to ask themselves why they did not get it already earlier.

After all, you can read as nicely about other kings as well, may they be from the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Monaco ... without having to pay for them.


Kings did not wear their crown back then permanently either. Only on official occasions. Franz Joseph for example was nearly only to be seen in a not too elaborate military uniform. Not as majestic as you might want. But he still was an emperor who ruled one of the most powerful countries in Europe, right after Briton, France and Germany. His philosphy was more to be the number one official of the state.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Please cite an example of such "arbitrariness" from 20th century Britain. Given that you say it is so common, it should be very easy for you to supply me with a dozen such examples.

Just because you don't like 'unwritten' constitutions, doesn't mean they don't work well.

Right. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler were impeded in any way by the constititions banning their actions. President Bush doesn't seem very bothered or troubled by ignoring the US constitution.

And where is that dictator that Britain ought to have? If that 'unwritten' constitution is so easy to abjure, where is the dictator?

Please cite an actual example of this to demonstrate your assertion. Methinks you are just making things up to justify your bias (post facto).

Please cite the statutory law that states this as such.

I'll have to check this out - thankfully, the UN Charter has no binding legal jurisdiction in Britain or in any other nation on earth. I suspect the same is true of the European Charter, but I'm not certain.

Euro-authoritarians with their passion for anti-liberty scare me.

And thus, your statement adds up to nothing.

The House of Windsor can trace lineage back to at least Edward the Confessor, and arguably, to Alfred the Great. That's a 1000 years of dynastic rule there.

Given the horrific quality of Habsburg rule throughout history, I'm surprised you don't shoot a Habsburg claimant on sight these days.

But no matter how idiotic (and ugly) the Habsburg dynasty was, that doesn't mean anything other than Austria had bad taste in monarchs. Austria's bad taste in monarchs doesn't prove that monarchs are bad by definition. Perhaps it is just Austrian monarchs that are particularly bad?

One doesn't pay for the House of Windsor. They are quite a bargain according to Queen Victoria's 'arrangement'.

And I'm not aware of anyone ever saying a bad word about the Dutch monarchy. They ride bicycles for gawd sakes!

I rest my case. No crown, no ermine, King no more.

I consider the Dutch Queen riding a bicycle to be a pathetic embarrassment of Kingship. Kill that bastard institution and put it out of its miserty. At least the Windsors can still put on a bit of pomp & circumstance to rise above their dreary middle class bourgeois existence! Having some nice castles helps too.

Speaking of which, the King/Queen should never be publicly seen in a motor car. That is vulgar. The ought to be pulled by a team of four, never less. Carriage must be gilded of course, with a dozen liveried footmen. Anything less than this is pathetic and vulgar. Might as well banker's suits and kiss babies.

well you should know that many people find the dutch queen very stiff and formal compared to her predecessor.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a book on this subject. The title is: Democracy: The God that Failed. His basic argument is that while a democracy (or republic, or whatever you want to call it) sounds good, a monarchy might be beter. He argues that becase politicians in a republic are in office for a temporary ammount of time, and have no interest of passing a healthy country to future generations, they loot as fast as they can. However, a king would have incentive to maintain the capital value of land. Also, a king is only a king because of his father. Therefor there is a healthy distrust of the King. His subjects question him frequently. However, when we vote for politicians, we don't have this attitude as much.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

The King of Sweden has a rather large personal fortune. The basis of this is the huge fortune that Charles XIV John, Marshall Bernadotte of France, brought with him when he was elected heir in 1810. Queens of Sweden has also added some to the fortune, and our present king has made good investments in the stock market etc., increasing his personal assets. His Ferrari is his own car, bought with his own money. He actually takes money form his own fortune to support the royal castles, which need more money to be kept in a good way than the Swedish Parliament and Cabinet wishes to grant them.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

You are lucky, so far. (I guess, however, that with a monarchy you would not have had all the international critizism for electing the former SS-officer Kurt Waldheim as president.)

You are wrong. The word republic is derived from the latin "res publica", which litteraly means "property of the people" (res = property, publicus = people). There are legal persons that are not owned by anyone, in English these are called foundations. A foundation is said to be owned by itself. I cannot see, however, that a republic is more equal to a foundation than to a cooperatively owned company.

Sure, it is a rather abstract argument, but I have yet to see anyone prove it wrong. As a theoretical guy and a lawyer by trade, I have no problem with the abstractness of it, since it does describe reality as reality is.


I have never heard that the European Court of Human Rights have granted a people collective rights. On the contrary, the treaties on human rights upon which they found their judgments are authored in a manner to give people individual rights, regardless of the state they are subjects to or the people they are ethnicly connected with.

When I say socialistic, I do not mean "people are equal", that is not a specifically socialistic idea. I mean that "people have collective rights".

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I did not know about this new Liechtensteinish constitution. It was interesting to read about it in your post, thank you.

It surprises me a bit, though, that the referendum would be about abolishing the monarchy as such.

I would consider it more logical to have a referendum on dethroning the currently ruling prince. After all, the people may want to keep the monarchy and put a heir to the prince on the throne. As far as I have understood, the people of Liechtenstein is generally very pleased with the monarchial form of government.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Without a president Waldheim would never have caused the coming to terms with our past during WWII. We would never have left the victims role that was given to us as a present by the allied forces after the war (and that we accepted happily).
It remains a mystery anyway why it was Waldheim that caused that scandal. We had far worse former nazis in the parties and even in the government from time to time. Nothing happened. Nothing happened until a former Nazi who was obviously not even a convinced one, got the politically powerless position of the President until the outcry took place. A bit odd, dont you think as well?

Well even if you are right, I cant see how this abstract arguement should have any implication on reality at all. If it doesnt have one, its useless for argumentation.


Sorry for not realizing the difference before. What are examples for those collect