Do you feel that titles like 'president' and 'prime minister' command less respect...

Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
#1
...than titles like king and emperor?

Personally I do. I know this probably isn't a majority opinion, but I feel that a monarch immediately has an air of respect and command about them, like even disregarding what the character of the monarch is, just by having the title of king or queen or emperor gives off this subtle but unmistakable vibe of legitimate power. 'President' and 'Prime Minister' feels so dull and diluted by the associations with basically winning glorified popularity contests, and the names themselves don't really give off the impression of command and power. I know this is sort of the point (in America the Founding Fathers wanted to have a leader with a title as far away from being associated with the monarchy as possible), but still, I can't shake this feeling that I have.

As someone that's Australian and officially has a monarch associated with my country, I've noticed that whenever my friends and family mention the Queen or the princes, it's with a subtle but noticeable air of respect in their tone, like even if you don't like them, the way people refer to them is still respectful and dignified. This certainly isn't the case with our Prime Ministers at all. I actually kind of like having the monarchy associated with my country. It feels kind of cool to refer to "the Queen" (and in the future "the King", which will be strange). I love history, so it's cool to still have figures that go by such ancient historical titles. I know a lot of people don't like that (and there's an ever-present movement in my country to break free entirely from the monarchy, which I strongly disagree with), but still.

Anyway, I don't really know where I was going with this. Just wanted to share my rambling thoughts.
 
Mar 2012
3,474
Redneck Country, AKA Texas
#3
It's all about knowing who has de facto power that commands more respect. Who do you think had more true power in Fascist Italy, Mussolini or Victor Emmanuel III?

True, the king got rid of him in 1943. But until then Mussolini acted like a dictator.
 
Aug 2016
338
Poland
#4
How about 1st secretary??? sounds like some guy doing papers shuffling and for dozens of years this title belonged to the most powerful people on planet together with US presidents.
---
btw I have read somewhere that Washington demanded to be titled : "his majesty President" or "his excellency President"
 
Apr 2015
627
Paris
#5
Personally I do. I know this probably isn't a majority opinion, but I feel that a monarch immediately has an air of respect and command about them, like even disregarding what the character of the monarch is, just by having the title of king or queen or emperor gives off this subtle but unmistakable vibe of legitimate power. 'President' and 'Prime Minister' feels so dull and diluted by the associations with basically winning glorified popularity contests, and the names themselves don't really give off the impression of command and power. I know this is sort of the point (in America the Founding Fathers wanted to have a leader with a title as far away from being associated with the monarchy as possible), but still, I can't shake this feeling that I have.

As someone that's Australian and officially has a monarch associated with my country, I've noticed that whenever my friends and family mention the Queen or the princes, it's with a subtle but noticeable air of respect in their tone, like even if you don't like them, the way people refer to them is still respectful and dignified. This certainly isn't the case with our Prime Ministers at all. I actually kind of like having the monarchy associated with my country. It feels kind of cool to refer to "the Queen" (and in the future "the King", which will be strange). I love history, so it's cool to still have figures that go by such ancient historical titles. I know a lot of people don't like that (and there's an ever-present movement in my country to break free entirely from the monarchy, which I strongly disagree with), but still.

Anyway, I don't really know where I was going with this. Just wanted to share my rambling thoughts.
Maybe it is just a personal habit, yours as an australian monarchist ? I think myself that the whole idea of respecting people for their birth and lineage, and a little dose of PR, is just nonsense. The perspective of a man holding actual legislative power because his ancestor's sister married a 16th c. king astonishes me. But hey I am just a republican Marseillaise-singing Frenchman !

In France, we have tested almost all possible titles for our executives : King, Director, Consul, Emperor, President, Chairman of the Council of ministers... The only title staying from the Middle Ages is Keeper of the Seal, which is a secondary title for the Minister of Justice. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is known as the Chancellery, but the Minister is not Chancellor. I almost forgot : our president is also the Prince of Andorra (well, one of the princes) and first lay canon of the Latran Cathedral in Rome. Our former president, Sarkozy, made a point of having himself canonically invested in Rome despite being a twice-divorced man.
 
Oct 2009
3,601
San Diego
#6
Presidents and prime ministers are appointed by men; its a job. Kings are appointed by god , its not a job.

It's a bit like comparing your servant to your father; which would you respect more.
Kings are not appointed by God. They are appointed thru ruthless use of force.

And sorry- to the OP but, NO- the titles king or emperor do NOT command more respect- they just command more fear, because those titles confer the capricious power to harm any person for any reason.

I have far more respect for a president, who takes power as a hireling of the people he represents knowing full well that his power is limited, and temporary.
Far more respect for the man who peacefully and nobly surrenders power when his term is up.


When King George was told that Washington would step down as president of the USA after only two terms... his response was " if he really does it, he will be the greatest man who ever lived".


THAT is the respect that a KING has to feel for a man who is far more noble and principled than any monarch.
 
Apr 2016
1,646
United Kingdom
#7
I argue the UK should retain its monarchy for emergency powers for precisely this reason: the monarchy carries an authority of tradition and time and constancy that some shape-shifting toom tabard would not. Though ultimately, its the holder that creates authority and the impression of it - not the title they wield. Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt are infinitely more respectable than kings like Stephen.

Kings are not appointed by God. They are appointed thru ruthless use of force
Say what you will of hereditary succession, but 'ruthless use of force' it isn't. Moreover, some kings were elected, many more restrained, and others fully noble and pious individuals far more ethical than anyone we'll ever meet. Some had to be, because their constitutional and cultural conditions mandated great works of charity and public acclaim. Tarring them all with the same brush - a brush that doesn't really fit most of them at all - isn't just unfair to actual humans, it's bad for history. We can't just write off thousands of years as inane violence. Certainly not, from a 20th and 21st century view, without a long, hard look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2012
1,554
#8
Wasn't it Machiavelli who said: He who builds on the people, builds on the mud.
And I agree. Why should I respect a President, simply for being chosen by a fickle and short-sighted mob, chosen for being the most pleasant, the most simpering and sycophantic?
I don't believe in what we call democracy, and I don't hold much respect for the figureheads of that ideology - who willingly debase themselves for a rabble, until they resemble less a statesman than a dancing bear.
 
Oct 2012
8,545
#9
Glee clubs have presidents, nations have kings. Democracy is an inherently illegitimate form of government, presidents of democratic states are usurpers and can never be anything more; they have derived their power from the mob and are are utterly unworthy of any obedience, much less respect.