Kung Fu King!

[Nacho]

Our prince has married with a former jornalist! She'll be the first non-royal breed Queen in Spanish history (Which is cool, because endogamy was destroying our royal family...)

During the wedding:



Wohaaa! Kung Fu King!!! The first kid of the "Infanta" (Daughter of the King) practises their Kung Fu abilities! I think it's hilarious...

But this will work for starting a debate... What do you thing of monarchies? Are they old fashioned? What is your oppinion about "royalty" being married with "normal people"?

I think they're quite cool since with monarchies, there is no danger that the main authority of the State would be like Bush or Chirac... The problem is that this families may at least "look" honorables, and some times they don't (Camilla, I want to be your Tampax!"

Anyone?

[HillBilly]

I'll say!

[BOYD1981]

i am anti-royalty of any kind, i'm anti anyone that thinks they have a right to be treated better than anyone else

[Pumaman]

I'm not a great fan of monarchies, but when I think about it I realise that it's the lesser of two evils. Although most royal families these days are just figureheads, they do provide an important final barrier to the government should it try and do something incredibly stupid (eg. turn the country into a dictatorship).

It's also handy to have a national figurehead who isn't political, so they can turn up to ceremonies and visit other countries without the visit 'meaning' anything in particular.

[Grundislav]

I think monarchies are a bit outdated, but then again many aspects of other governments are as well. I don't like the whole "we're royalty so we're better" attitude though.

A couple of months ago the Prince of Spain was stopped at Miami International Airport in order to be searched, and he got so mad he threatened to have Iberia Airlines not fly through Miami anymore. 

I think that's a bit ridiculous; I mean, if you're a head of state, sure you may have diplomatic immunity, but doesn't it make you an even MORE likely target for terrorism? Of course, this issue is a completely different subject, so I'll leave it at that.

[Nacho]

As far as I know, that incident in Miami was not like that, and, knowing the Prince, he could never said something that "Iberia won't fly here anyomore!!1!"

Specially since Iberia is now a private Company.

EDIT: And... BTW, the "no-to-monarchies" are not discussing about the big advantadges, as CJ said:

a) They're non-political figures.
b) They work as a symbol which can remain fairly "clean" whatever the government does... An easy example: The US King wouldn't have been split by the tortures their army did, whereas in the Republic, the whole seal of the "president of the US" is "dirty" in some way.
c) Yeah... they can help a country not to become a dictatorial state... John Charles I of Spain was supposed to be the next Franco and he said "No, no... let's go to democracy"

He also (As a head commander of the Spanish army) avoided the attempt of coup d'Etat on 1981 to succed.
And I must add:

d) They don't cost MORE than the expenses of representation than any head of state could have... So, IMO, the discussion must be:

1)Do we need State Heads?
2)If "yes"... which is better? King or elected?

Sorry, the "They believe they're better than me" does not work for me as an argumentation, as I know hundreds of people who think that are better than me, and they don't belong to monarchies.

Egocentrics are everywhere...

[jetxl]

I'm not a great fan of monarchies, but when I think about it I realise that it's the lesser of two evils. Although most royal families these days are just figureheads, they do provide an important final barrier to the government should it try and do something incredibly stupid (eg. turn the country into a dictatorship).

It's usually the royalty that do stupid things.

[Nacho]

Put an example of stupids things monarchy did that couldn't have been done by a President or a head of State and I'll agree they're worse...

[jetxl]

My history is a bit bad. But wasn't it portugual's king that turn over to the nazi's? I hope I didn't mixed up countries.
The dutch royalties fled to england in the war, so they wouldn't be used as pawns. Still...not a brave thing to do. The government stayed.

[Nacho]

That's not a good example... Azaña, the spanish president of the second Republic, also fled when Nacionales were far away from Madrid... About monarchies turning to aid the nazis, yeah, we got examples, like the Portugal's ones (Sorry, I'm not so sure about that...) what I'm sure about is that Portugal's support to the Nazis never was translated into fighting troops...

Bulgaria's King actually gave a fighting aid to Hitler, but... wasn't it Hakoon of Norgue who became a symbol of the resistence? What about the British King, who remained in London?

No... cowardy or bravery is not exclusive of royalty...

[HillBilly]

The danish prince gave Karl Johan(sweden dude) Norway in trade for him protecting him against Napoleon. I think the DP flew to Norway to hide himself, too.

CHICKEN! bwack-bwack!

[jetxl]

Again, the knowledge of dutch royaltie fails me, but the dutch king (he was married to the queen. He was still called a prince to keep the royal name alive) took bribes and they found out!
If a Head Of State did this, he would be fired and ostrasised.
But the guy was still cutting ribbons after the scandal.

[Nacho]

The danish prince gave Karl Johan(sweden dude) Norway in trade for him protecting him against Napoleon. I think the DP flew to Norway to hide himself, too.

CHICKEN! bwack-bwack!

Good Lord... that was 200 years ago... 

[HillBilly]

Oh... Well our future queen is a crackpot.

[LordHart]

I just wish that Australia would become a Republic... fucking stupid queen.

[Las Naranjas]

I don't think this is a debate between Monarchy and Presidency as between Legislative and Non Legislative executives.


There's nothing that's been argued for in a monarchy here, that isn't completely available in a non heriditary Non Legislative Executive, which costs alot less than keeping someone in luxury for who their ancestors killed and fucked.

Whereas the legislative head of state, whether elected or hereditary is plagued with problems. Elected leaders becoming dictators, notably in the case of Louis Napoleon or in South Korea, or the conflict between Congress and the Presidency are problems that can arise. But equally a monarch retaining power is a huge problem and gives rise to the likes of kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Nicholas, Louis XVII, Charles I etc. etc. and then indirectly to Hitler, Stalin, The Terror and Napoleon and Cromwell.


The important point is not putting much power in the hands of the executive. If a country chooses to do that by keeping a family in luxury for their ancestor's debatable merits like Spain and Britain, or whether they elect a figure to a symbolic role like India or appoint a figure ala Canada, Australia and New Zealand is that countries business.

The last option costs the least though, and still retains all the benefits that have been suggested in favour here though.

[Apocathary Fairy]

I don't like monarchys, but when the revolution comes we'll atleast have some heads to chop off.

Viva la Revolution!! :

[Pumaman]

An appointed head of state sounds like a good idea, so long as no politicians are involved in the appointment. I think it's also important to have the head of state for a long term, so that it allows them to establish the country with an international identity.

An elected head of state would worry me, because we'd be bound to end up with some movie star or whoever was flavour of the week at election time. Does this tend to work alright in countries with this system?

Either way, it's important for the head of state to have some theoretical power (especially in a country like the UK where there is no constitution) so that as a final resort they can block any mad move by the government.

[Las Naranjas]

A little pointless fact. The figure who wields executive power under the Australian Constitution is the Governor General. He is appointed by the PM alone [well, technically by the Queen on the PM's recommendation, but the sovereign will never disagree].

Of the alternatives, an appointed executive looks like the one most likely to be politicised.

But the only time that the executive power was used at a federal level was in 1975, and was used against the PM who had made the appointment.

Adding on to that, the referendum in 199 was defeated on the question of the appointment of the new executive in much the same role, where it seemed an elected executive, rather than one appointed by 2/3 of parliament [which is less political the present system] would be prefered.

[Barcik]

We here are still waiting for the True King of the House of David who will build the Third Temple.