Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does the monarch have the official government title of head of state?
Does the monarch have the legally written ability to veto a law? (even if it's unused through precedent)
Do they receive tax payer money?
Do they have a term limit, and is there a stated mechanism to remove them from office?
1. It's not a government title, it's a national title. Yes, the monarch is the head of state - a ceremonial title - but not the head of government (that would be the Prime Minister).
2. Technically yes, but it's never ever been used and never will be. It's not even an issue here, only in your mind.
3. Yes, but the monarch has no control over the amount he/she receives (this is up to the government) and only the Queen and Crown Prince receive an allowance. However, like I said, the monarchy brings in more money than they receive so they're not a cost to society.
4. No but I already explained why this isn't a problem. Does the US still have all the same laws it did a few centuries ago? In a democracy, new laws and amendments are made all the time to suit the shifts in public opinion.
Quote:
The majority is not always correct, like when protecting minority rights. And any majority that defends and props up a monarchy over democracy is obviously wrong.
Protecting minority rights has nothing to do with the monarchy and you've been shown time and time again that democracy and the monarchy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the US is less democratic than any of the constitutional monarchies in Europe.
1. It's not a government title, it's a national title. Yes, the monarch is the head of state - a ceremonial title - but not the head of government (that would be the Prime Minister).
2. Technically yes, but it's never ever been used and never will be. It's not even an issue here, only in your mind.
3. Yes, but the monarch has no control over the amount he/she receives (this is up to the government) and only the Queen and Crown Prince receive an allowance. However, like I said, the monarchy brings in more money than they receive so they're not a cost to society.
4. No but I already explained why this isn't a problem. Does the US still have all the same laws it did a few centuries ago? In a democracy, new laws and amendments are made all the time to suit the shifts in public opinion.
Protecting minority rights has nothing to do with the monarchy and you've been shown time and time again that democracy and the monarchy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the US is less democratic than any of the constitutional monarchies in Europe.
You are talking to a brick wall. He doesn't care about the opinions of those who actually live in or lived in European countries with constitutional monarchies. He just wants to shove his views down our throats and proclaim "I'm right and you're wrong". Then people ask me why I cannot stay in the US. People wonder why the US gets such a bad press; these posts should help explain that.
I dug up this old post of mine to explain why I prefer a parliamentary constitutional monarchy over a republic. I'll post it here because it's relevant to this discussion and may provide some understanding to Americans who are not really familiar with European monarchies:
"A ceremonial monarch fulfills several very important functions:
1. It is a symbol of national unity, it transcends partisan politics. For example, in my country we have Queen's Day on which we celebrate the Queen's birthday, which is a huge national holiday for everyone, young and old, left-wing and right-wing. A President could never get the support of 80% of the population behind him like most monarchs have. This is why I said it's important that the monarch is supported by a vast majority of the population, otherwise this representative function is lost.
2. A ceremonial monarch (or President, like Germany has) relieves the pressure of national elections because people are not electing a Head of State. Monarchies and Ceremonial Presidencies do not have the type of extreme political campaigns (starting 2 years before the elections) that the US has because the role of the head of government (Prime Minister/Chancellor) is not as high-profile. It's a matter of preference but I absolutely prefer the Prime Minister & coalition government type of system.
3. Monarchies are often an important part of a country's cultural heritage, dating back several centuries. The ceremonies are constructive to a country's identity.
4. People talk about the costs of maintaining a monarchy (as if a President doesn't get paid) but they forget to mention the revenue a (ceremonial) monarch brings in. Countries with monarchies earn a huge amount of money from tourists who want to see the Queen's castles, the royal ceremonies, etc. Presidents do not generate this kind of interest and public fascination.
5. A monarch can open up (business) opportunities abroad. At least here in the Netherlands, when the Queen (or Crown Prince) visits another country, there are usually a lot of lobbyists going with her trying to arrange business deals. Especially in more traditional countries like in the ME and Asia, a monarch is more esteemed and respected than an elected President.
6. The royal family are not just "living off our tax dollars", they fulfill important political, social or economic functions. For example, the Dutch Crown-Prince is President of the advisory board of Water & Sanitary Provisions of the UN among other things. They all work except for the Queen (who is of course very busy fulfilling a social function).
Anyway, I can perfectly understand why some people would prefer a republic but don't pretend like the only reason to be pro-monarchy is blissful ignorance and don't act like "we" are all fed up with it."
This is an entirely different case because it deals with human rights. Having a parliamentary constitutional republic with wide popular support doesn't violate anyone's rights.
Are you telling me Monarchy does not involve human rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
You don't care about democracy, you want to impose the American model on other countries when over 80% of the population clearly state they don't want it.
There are many other models of democratic republics to choose from France, Germany, Ireland, etc. Why are you so caught up on the American model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy which is very different from a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. And the Republic of North Korea considers itself a monarchy? This just keeps getting better
You keep on making a fool out of yourself and show the rest of us how brainwashed you are
Like Saudi Arabia, european monarchies have unelected monarchs as head of state.
Like Saudi Arabi, european monarchs have an unlimited term.
Like Saudi Arabi, there is no stated mechanism to remove european monarchs.
Like Saudi Arabi, european monarchies receive free tax payer money
Are you telling me Monarchy does not involve human rights?
There are many other models of democratic republics to choose from France, Germany, Ireland, etc. Why are you so caught up on the American model?
Like Saudi Arabia, european monarchies have unelected monarchs as head of state.
Like Saudi Arabi, european monarchs have an unlimited term.
Like Saudi Arabi, there is no stated mechanism to remove european monarchs.
Like Saudi Arabi, european monarchies receive free tax payer money
Who really is the brainwashed one?
You are so funny. Are you now ignoring my replies to your posts?
This is all rich coming from someone who is a citizen of a country where politicians pander to unelected corporate interests; lobbyists. Some democracy, that is, where votes can be "bought" and where the president is nothing more than a source of blame or praise.
You can keep your system, we (Eurotrash) will keep our parliamentary systems with a monarch as our not elected, but popular head of state.
Are you telling me Monarchy does not involve human rights?
Yes, that's what I just said. Can you give me one example how the constitutional monarchy infringes on human rights?
Quote:
There are many other models of democratic republics to choose from France, Germany, Ireland, etc. Why are you so caught up on the American model?
Because the other examples you mention (except for France which has a Semi-Presidential system) also have a ceremonial head of state and you clearly do not understand this notion so it's not what you're arguing for.
Quote:
Like Saudi Arabia, european monarchies have unelected monarchs as head of state.
Like Saudi Arabi, european monarchs have an unlimited term.
Like Saudi Arabi, there is no stated mechanism to remove european monarchs.
Like Saudi Arabi, european monarchies receive free tax payer money
Who really is the brainwashed one?
Yes, but unlike Saudi Arabia the European monarchs are constrained by the Constitution, which makes Saudi Arabia a tyranny and the European monarchies democratic.
1. It's not a government title, it's a national title. Yes, the monarch is the head of state - a ceremonial title - but not the head of government (that would be the Prime Minister).
2. Technically yes, but it's never ever been used and never will be. It's not even an issue here, only in your mind.
3. Yes, but the monarch has no control over the amount he/she receives (this is up to the government) and only the Queen and Crown Prince receive an allowance. However, like I said, the monarchy brings in more money than they receive so they're not a cost to society.
4. No but I already explained why this isn't a problem. Does the US still have all the same laws it did a few centuries ago? In a democracy, new laws and amendments are made all the time to suit the shifts in public opinion.
Basically you've confirmed why your country's monarchy is part of the government. And so you know, no citizen of a democratic republic would ever answer those question the way you have and think to themselves - "I live in a free democracy"
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
Protecting minority rights has nothing to do with the monarchy and you've been shown time and time again that democracy and the monarchy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the US is less democratic than any of the constitutional monarchies in Europe.
You keep on believing that while your head of state remains in power forever without a single vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep on believing that while your head of state remains in power forever without a single vote.