Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 26th, 2017, 05:50 AM   #1
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Italy
Posts: 956
Monarchy: still useful today?


Monarchy may have been a viable form of government in the past, before democratic concepts took root; but honestly, I believe that this system has outlived its usefulness. In the 21st century, in our advanced modern society, does monarchy still have anything positive and dynamic to offer?

According to my own viewpoint, monarchy was already obsolete in the 18th century (the Age of Enlightenment).

Constitutional monarchy is hardly better than absolute: the second stresses the supreme status of the monarch and his/her "right" to rule and dictate law practically alone, while the first reduces the monarch to a mere figurehead, a useless "prestige" figure who is nevertheless a great drain on the national economy.

Comments are welcome.

Last edited by reitia; August 26th, 2017 at 05:52 AM.
reitia is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 26th, 2017, 05:56 AM   #2
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 192

Constitutional monarchy is the best form of governance in the world today.
Warwolf is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 05:56 AM   #3

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: România
Posts: 6,135
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by reitia View Post
Monarchy may have been a viable form of government in the past, before democratic concepts took root; but honestly, I believe that this system has outlived its usefulness. In the 21st century, in our advanced modern society, does monarchy still have anything positive and dynamic to offer?

According to my own viewpoint, monarchy was already obsolete in the 18th century (the Age of Enlightenment).

Constitutional monarchy is hardly better than absolute: the second stresses the supreme status of the monarch and his/her "right" to rule and dictate law practically alone, while the first reduces the monarch to a mere figurehead, a useless "prestige" figure who is nevertheless a great drain on the national economy.

Comments are welcome.
I agree with you.
Offspring is online now  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:00 AM   #4

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 5,304
Blog Entries: 1

A great drain on the public finances. I dont think so ...........


And it’s not just Kate’s fashion choices that boost the economy, her children do too. A staggering £76 million has been attributed to the 'George Effect' including sales clothing, accessories and souvenirs with his birth thought to have brought £247 million into the country in 2013.

Meanwhile the report reveals £114 million in revenue for 2015 was down to the 'Charlotte Effect'. Within days of her birth it was reported that Princess Charlotte had given an £80 million boost to the economy with commemorative mugs, t-shirts and more flying off the shelf.

That’s not bad for someone who’s not even one yet! And it has been predicted that the Princess could be worth a whopping £1 billion to the economy by the time she is 10 years old, predominantly from her impact on fashion – just like her mother.

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/m...11364067030820
funakison is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:05 AM   #5

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: România
Posts: 6,135
Blog Entries: 8

A poll would have been interesting.
Offspring is online now  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:06 AM   #6
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Italy
Posts: 956

Quote:
Originally Posted by funakison View Post
A great drain on the public finances. I dont think so ...........


And it’s not just Kate’s fashion choices that boost the economy, her children do too. A staggering £76 million has been attributed to the 'George Effect' including sales clothing, accessories and souvenirs with his birth thought to have brought £247 million into the country in 2013.

Meanwhile the report reveals £114 million in revenue for 2015 was down to the 'Charlotte Effect'. Within days of her birth it was reported that Princess Charlotte had given an £80 million boost to the economy with commemorative mugs, t-shirts and more flying off the shelf.

That’s not bad for someone who’s not even one yet! And it has been predicted that the Princess could be worth a whopping £1 billion to the economy by the time she is 10 years old, predominantly from her impact on fashion – just like her mother.

How the Queen and the royal family boost the UK economy - BT
Funakison, this is frivolous fan-spending. I was referring to something SERIOUS which monarchy can contribute to the world.
reitia is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:07 AM   #7
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by funakison View Post
A great drain on the public finances. I dont think so ...........


And it’s not just Kate’s fashion choices that boost the economy, her children do too. A staggering £76 million has been attributed to the 'George Effect' including sales clothing, accessories and souvenirs with his birth thought to have brought £247 million into the country in 2013.

Meanwhile the report reveals £114 million in revenue for 2015 was down to the 'Charlotte Effect'. Within days of her birth it was reported that Princess Charlotte had given an £80 million boost to the economy with commemorative mugs, t-shirts and more flying off the shelf.

That’s not bad for someone who’s not even one yet! And it has been predicted that the Princess could be worth a whopping £1 billion to the economy by the time she is 10 years old, predominantly from her impact on fashion – just like her mother.

How the Queen and the royal family boost the UK economy - BT
I wish republicans would stop peddling the ridiculous myth that the monarchy is a "drain on the economy."

Take a look at Britain - the entire monarchy costs each taxpayer around 65p (around the cost of a chocolate bar) each year. If we switched over and became a republic and had - horror of horrors - President Blair or President Corbyn or whoever as our Head of State rather than Queen Elizabeth II it would be far more expensive: in America, Air Force One alone costs more than the entire British monarchy.

Another bad thing about republics: they are boring. They just don't have the pomp, ceremony and tradition of monarchies.

Last edited by Warwolf; August 26th, 2017 at 06:10 AM.
Warwolf is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:07 AM   #8
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Italy
Posts: 956

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwolf View Post
Constitutional monarchy is the best form of governance in the world today.
In what way, warwolf?
reitia is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:16 AM   #9

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 5,304
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by reitia View Post
Funakison, this is frivolous fan-spending. I was referring to something SERIOUS which monarchy can contribute to the world.
whatever it is it counters your claim that the royal familly was a serious drain on the British economy.

Once upon a long time age Britain had an empire that was the envy of the world. Now it is gone and our role as the predominate nation has dwindled to the level of an also ran. Yet we still have power in this world, a power not dependent on might or money, but a power of prestige, a prestige that would be nothing without the Royal familly.
funakison is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:21 AM   #10
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by reitia View Post
In what way, warwolf?
Transparency International's corruption perceptions index puts 7 monarchies inside the top 10 countries for their absence of corruption: Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Canada are all among the very best.

Tyler Rolance, staff editor at human rights-advocating NGO Freedom House, says that "even if modern constitutional monarchies are not a cause of democratic practices, they do seem to be a result of high-performing democratic political cultures characterised by legal continuity, compromise, self-limitation, suspicion of radicalism, and regular, moderate adjustments and policy corrections."

Andreas Bergh and Christian Bjørnskov find that social trust is higher in monarchies. Social trust is an important factor in sociology and economics, and generally correlates with lower crime and lower corruption, among other things.

Other studies have suggested that monarchical states seem to promote cohesion. A study by Sascha Becker and others shows higher trust and less corruption inside the borders of the old Habsburg empire than among the people who live just outside the empire's historical borders.

Bjørnskov and Peter Kurrild‐Klitgaard also argued that the "valley of tears," a period of stagnation after institutional reforms, is less prevalent in monarchies. They conclude that in the data they assess "this valley does not appear in monarchies. In fact, if anything it has the opposite effect."

According to political scientist Victor Menaldo, in the Middle East from 1950 to 2006, monarchies offered much more stability than other forms of government: "Not only are monarchies far less likely than republics to suffer from political instability, but monarchical rulers are more likely to survive in office."

Former Bank of England rate-setter Tim Besley wrote a working paper earlier in the year suggesting that "in a country with weak executive constraints, going from a non-hereditary leader to an hereditary leader increases the annual average economic growth of the country by 1.03 percentage points per year." That's a lot!

Harvard historian Eric Nelson recently argued in his book "The Royalist Revolution" that many of the American founding fathers of the late 18th century were rebelling against parliament, not the crown, describing the revolutionary war as "an insurrection in favor of royal power."

Oxford University's Petra Schleiter and Kent's Edward Morgan-Jones suggest that governments under constitutional monarchies are more likely to consult their people with early elections, in comparison to both appointed and directly elected presidents.

And monarchies also rank pretty well in terms of their economic framework. In the World Bank's ease of doing business index, five of the top ten countries have a monarch. New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, the UK and Australia make the cut.

11 reasons why your country should have a monarchy - Business Insider
Warwolf is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
monarchy, today



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If Russia became a Constitutional Monarchy and the Monarchy was ever abolished World History Fan Speculative History 10 November 13th, 2015 10:35 PM
Monarchy - Kingitanga and the effect on today's society Kahu Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 August 24th, 2015 04:30 PM
Did you like your monarchy? PrinceofOrange General History 276 June 27th, 2014 01:04 AM
Doing away with monarchy GogLais General History 754 January 31st, 2014 08:15 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.