The role of monarchy in modern European states

Going off-topic in another thread led me to create this new thread. I think it's an interesting topic that is often dismissed: the role of monarchy in modern European states!

The debate does not centre exclusively around the British monarchy, but may include other European monarchies. I encourage American tropers to participate as well, given the popular fascination with royal weddings and gossip.

So as not to dismiss Sandbylur's argument regarding the costs of the British monarchy, here's his link to a youtube video on the subject:

I can tell you that there are three problems with the video:

1. The picture of the 'awesome castles of Britain' is not a castle in Britain. In fact, it's the French castle of Mont Saint-Michel◊.

2. He concludes that it costs 67p for each British citizen, using the royally published figure of £40 million. To get to this figure, you divide 40,000,000 by 60,000,000 (roughly the population of the UK). This assumes that all 60,000,000 people in the UK are eligible taxpayers. If we were to do the same with any governmental policy it would also be "cheap" to have healthcare or welfare (and the figure of £40 million is not complete. It has been estimated that the amount is as high as £200 million, according to this report.

3. The so called "profits" from the revenue of the crown estate is not some kind of special gift from the monarchs to parliament. It was a transfer of not only the revenues from the crown estate, but also a transfer of governmental responsibilities. In other words, parliament instead of the monarchy would be paying for government expenses... in exchange for £8 million for the royals.

Question is then, what do you think about the monarchy?

edited 14th Oct '11 6:26:23 AM by germi91

That's just the news media mate. By and large Americans are the kind of folks who in regards to royalty are like "...and not a single fuck was given that day".

But I'll respond quickly. Personally, NO state should be a monarchy. They are a relic of history like labor unions and the Roman Coliseum and unlike the Coliseum they have no need of preservation.

I am personaly a anti-monarchist. A person should earn a position of power, not be born into it. That is my take on the matter.

Avoid Flame Bait please. Some of us tropers like Trade Unions. Discuss in other thread if you need to.

Labour unions arent a relic of history but thats not the topic at hand. I think that Monarchs are useful in European states because they are outside normal politcal proccesses and a president isn't.

edited 14th Oct '11 6:05:27 AM by whaleofyournightmare

I used to be very much against them when I was younger and more iconoclastic, but nowadays I'm mildly in favour. I don't think it's worth the expenses and paperwork of getting rid of them (which would mean the loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a fundamental part of our constitution), and the tourist industry alone is more than enough to justify keeping them. And I do like the idea of the monarch existing to keep Parliament in check, even if that's just a hypothetical that probably plays no role in actual Parliamentary decisions.

I'm not a particularly big fan of it. I was raised in a Republican backdrop and some of that certainly has stuck; I can't stand the celebrity worship thats given to them by the media and the nonsense that surrounded the recent British Royal Wedding really was silly. I don't like its inherent Conservatism, and the less said about the arrogant, Union Jack-waving "We Are The People" triumphalism that follows certain people in this country the better I'll feel.

That said, while I don't have any particular love for the Monarchy I do still recognise that it is a major element of British democracy and one that has served the country well since, at the very least, the second world war. The Monarchy has done a lot to ensure the country's best interests while being free from the petty nature of everyday politics.

There are many things wrong with British politics but this certainly isn't one of them. Why fix something that isn't broken?

edited 14th Oct '11 6:20:00 AM by TheBatPencil

For what it's worth, I believe that the Queen approaches her duties with admirable professionalism, and until we decide that it might be necessary to codify the constitution she's really the only institutional check on the power of parliament.

That said, I wouldn't be too troubled if the current monarch is our last. The uproar would be bothersome, though. Removing the monarchy might be akin, in the eyes of much of the public, to the American congress voting to declare the Constitution irrelevant.

Of course, my family are Ulster unionists, so I'm probably just being biased.

Mildly in favour. I'll repeat my reasons from the other thread -

Actually, I'll let Stephen Fry explain it, as I am not as eloquent as he.

I did mention that you lose nothing unique in abolishing the monarchy. There are plenty of cultural and historical traditions to Britain, including a strong history of republicanism and parliamentarism. What Mr. Fry (as much as I admire and respect him) doesn't understand is that it's not merely a cosmetic change. There are serious problems with having a monarchy that affects the quality and advancement of democratic practice, especially so in the British context (without including or talking about the aristocracy or the House of Lords).

No one is asking for the palaces, castles or other beautiful architecture (what really interests tourists) to be demolished. Appeal To Tradition is not a good reason to preserve the monarchy.

edited 14th Oct '11 7:34:24 AM by germi91

Well, Queen Elizabeth II doesn't reign by her own right. She reigns by the consent of the people. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 settled that question when Parliament invited William of Orange to become King William IV.

As such, her royal privileges are only those that the people, through their representatives in Parliament, allow her to have. So really, the UK is a democratic monarchy. The way I see it, the people of the UK and other Commonwealth realms choose to have a monarchy, and it exists solely at their pleasure.

And the same is true in most of the remaining European nations that have monarchs. Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc. are all functionally democratic, but have chosen to retain a monarch as their symbolic Head of State.

Vatican City is the only remaining absolute monarchy in Europe. It's a non-hereditary elective theocratic monarchy. The Pope both reigns and rules his little city-state with absolute power.

I wouldn't want to institute a monarchy in the US, but I do understand why other countries choose to keep theirs. It's a symbol of national unity, culture and heritage, and something that the country can show off.

Not so. Constitutionally in the UK, sovereignty lies with the parliament, and this was made especially clear in the Manuel v Attorney General case:

"I have grave doubts about the theory of the transfer of sovereignty as affecting the competence of Parliament. In my view, it is a fundamental of the English constitution that Parliament is supreme. As a matter of law the courts of England recognise Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence. Under the authority of Parliament the courts of a territory may be released from their legal duty to obey Parliament, but that does not trench on the acceptance by the English courts of all that Parliament does. Nor must validity in law be confused with practical enforceability."

In other words, she reigns by the consent of the parliament, not the people. All acts of parliament are considered to be part of the UK constitution (hence why it is uncodified). Legally speaking the queen chooses the prime minister. She doesn't even have to appoint one, though in practice of course it's different. She has a host of other constitutional powers such as the right to disband the government or dissolve the parliament for whatever reason she wants or does not want to give.

edited 14th Oct '11 8:16:01 AM by germi91

If the monarchy ever seriously attempted to interfere with the democratic process, they'd be out on their ear. The Queen does possess the power to dismiss Parliament, but should she or any successive monarch attempt to exercise it you can bet it would be stripped by the next Parliament.

Now, the Lords is a different matter, and I believe it requires reform - but at the same time, the Lords has also stopped the Commons from passing some rather dodgy shit. I do think there is some merit in having a house of experienced peers with a maturity based on longevity, but I'm not sure how much reform it actually needs.

^^ You do realise that in Parliamentary Sovereignty, the definition of "Parliament" explicitly includes the reigning monarch as an integral feature?

Also, given that, as has been established, the UK stands to make some actual, concrete losses should we lose this particular tradition (the monarchy itself being a tourist attraction at least as much as any castle, due to their symbolic presence), I don't really see how this can be called a mere appeal to tradition.

(Although if we're going to do that, I may as well point out that being called the "United Republic" would be pretty much the worst thing ever. The union might as well disband out of shame if that happened. )

Let's try a different focus - what do we stand to gain from the monarchy's abolition?

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned*

I'd rather not everyone have the same cookie-cutter republican government. Most monarchies are born out of a nation's tradition and shouldn't be shorn away for the sake of modernism. All that needs to be done is that a check is placed on their power, which is the point of a constitution and independant legislature.

Honestly, I'm in favor of constitutional monarchy (with the monarch actually having some power rather than be purely a figurehead as in Japan). Kinda hoping some of the wrongfully deposed dynasties (meaning they were popular and had done good works for the country before being toppled for other reasons, like with Romania or some of the former Balkan monarchies) can eventually win back their people too, but THAT part is a bit more pie in the sky.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act removed the Monarch's right to dissolve Parliament in September.

There's nothing to be gained from abolishing the Monarchy. We're not any better or worse off than any Republic for it; as the ever wise Mr Fry said, it'd be a purely ideological and cosmetic thing with no benefit to anybody.

edited 14th Oct '11 8:45:14 AM by TheBatPencil

Hereditary monarchies are actually quite useful things! For example, the only surviving "Virgin Forests" in continental Europe are in Poland. Why you ask? When Poland had a monarchy, they set aside this land for all time, and so far, its been left alone for hundreds of years. Monarchs are natural environmentalists - they are immune to any sort of flavor of the day mentality (unlike, say, all the panicky congressmen here in America who want to de-fund everything just to deal with a single recession), as they assume that their descendants are going to still rule the land and they never have to worry about re-election. Other examples of monarchies that single-handedly saved unique ecosystems include the Tokugawa shogunate (not a monarch in name, but in practice the Tokugawa were effectively hereditary monarchs), who recognized that Japan was about to be completely deforested and so they basically claimed all un-cultivated land belong to the Tokugawa and forbade folks from chopping trees without permission, and the English monarchy, who set aside forests to preserve the Yew supply (for longbows). In fact, it wasn't until recently that Sherwood forest was privately sold, and that only happened because the monarchy has been weakened to the point that it couldn't stop Parliament from making this huge mistake.

Also, I wouldn't ignore the importance of being a symbol of the State. There's a reason that Civilization IV gives Hereditary Rule a bonus to happiness - in times of trouble or despair, having a monarch stand proudly and encourage the people can work miracles. See, for example, The Kings Speech.

edited 14th Oct '11 8:47:28 AM by MyGodItsFullofStars

^ Speaking of George VI, the example he set following the events portrayed in that film, during the Second World War, I would argue was very beneficial in terms of general morale.

George VI wanted to go to France on the 7th of June 1944 lol.

So did Churchill, or so the story goes. Supposedly, they had a big argument about who would go over with the troops and since they couldn't both go, they decided they'd both stay at home.

Nowadays, monarchies are just republics with a mascot. They're a nice symbol to unify the nation around and draw in spectators. That isn't a bad thing though.

Monarchies also do a good job of alleviating pressure from other government officials. They don't have to juggle their roles as head of state and head of government.

...

I do like Queen Elizabeth II.

edited 14th Oct '11 9:45:07 AM by Pentadragon

Well... it's an intriguing system, either way, to me.

I would probably argue for keeping them, since they probably generate as much in tourism as they spend in tax dollars, I'd guess, so the net loss/gain is probably not enough to justify the cost of going about and changing it all.

That would be the practical reasoning, anyhow. I think their value as a cultural and national symbol is a positive thing onto itself, and as I understand it they're also there, functionally, to prevent Parliament from being stupid, so they have no real power (and therefore are nonthreatening) unless something has gone fundamentally and horrifically wrong (in which case they may be a better bet than the people in Parliament).

Although, honestly, I agree with Tom, in the sense that, if Britain got rid of them my reaction would amount to "aw, that sucks, no more cool British thing. Ah well, back to it." It's just not that big a deal to me, as an American...

edited 14th Oct '11 10:46:15 AM by USAF713

They can be used for giving profile to particular causes, which is something that Princess Diana started. But mostly, I view it as entertainment spending by the government into a "luxury". People are entertained by this, it has value (but perhaps no long-term economic growth), it's cheap, especially for non-UK countries (we don't even pay the 40 million pounds, we pay zero per year but the royal visits are paid for). It's also a part of culture and we spend on heritage, so why not on royalty? Treating as inherently bad feels like going down the train of logic of a certain troper who dislikes art here, where you eliminate something simply because it doesn't fit with your particular view of what is useful cultural spending.

Now, I suppose if one of Europe's republics were to decide that they want a monarch, that would be interesting. But historically, it is almost unheard of for a country to re-estabilsh an abolished monarch.

On the other hand, if a country decided out of the blue to establish a King, I'll give them my phone number.

France? The Netherlands? Spain?