What is your opinion of monarchy?

Any particular one, or monarchy in general.

I was in Sweden a couple years ago, where they still have a King and Queen (I think) – people took me out to dinner and asked me “what did I think of a monarchy?”. I said it was quaint and cute, but having grown up in a country where we have elected officials (and we dumped the British in 1776), the whole idea of having royalty and a royal family was just sort of silly.

Britain is the same answer. When Elizabeth dies, the Brits ought to disband the monarchy and make people work for a living.

Monarchies worked in the 1400s-1600s. But not really since then,

@elbanditoroso Monarchy in general. But anyone who wishes to address a particular monarchy, by all means.

Thanks for sharing that by the way, and I agree.

I have no problem with it. If the people want to support traditions such as this, more power to them. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and other constitutional monarchies with universal suffrage seem to be doing fine. It isn’t the tradition in the States for very good reason. At the time we revolted, the monarchy and their favored corporations had extraordinary powers over the people and economy and we opted for a system of white male suffrage where even a landless commoner had a say in how he was governed. In it’s day, that idea was quite radical and resulted in a bitter six-year war.

Today, those monarchies haven’t anywhere near the influence over the populations they had 250 years ago and if they attempted to regain that influence, they would be immediately cast into the masses with the rest of us and they know it. Therefore, like museum dioramas, they exist at the whim and grace of the democracies they live within, as it should be.

Just as with democracies or any other form of government, some work and some don’t.

One day you will all bow before the new German Kaiser

That one didn’t work.

The German Space Kaiser. Of SPACE.

Yeah, of course that one will work.

I have no complaints of 21st century, constitutional monarchies in which the sovereign exercises only ceremonial duties and sometimes advises. It works well in many countries.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “works”. In modern constitutional monarchies, where the monarch is little more than a ceremonial role, I’m not sure what the point is. But in old absolute monarchies, yeah, they often worked. Now who they worked for is a different matter, but they worked. Say what you will about systems in which absolute power is vested in a single person, but, for good or ill, they get shit done (as opposed to the petty squabbling and deadlock that so often is a highlight of democracies).

Well…there are times when I wish we could send a nice letter to Buckingham Palace saying that we’re really, really sorry and asking if we can come home now.

There’s something to be said for having a leader who was born and bred to the title and knows how to behave. And who doesn’t have to be elected.

Maybe that thought is just a reflexive shudder at the prospect of the next six months—and then the next four years—in American politics.

I’m also remembering an article I read sometime in the 1970s that suggested we should make Great Britain on offer to buy Prince Charles, who was already trained and who might have to wait a long, long time before he got his turn to rule.

Depends on what you want to “work”, and what your monarch is like.

@Jeruba This is minutia. The monarchs of the UK no longer “rule.” They “reign.”

I can’t see how a monarchy can have any place in a democratic society. They should be put down humanely or sold off to the highest bidder.

@Hawaii_Jake, thank you. I’m a big fan of minutiae, and I knew that didn’t sound right.

“Minutiae.” Thank you. I knew that looked off.

I’ve only ever lived in the United States, and I have a hard time believing that I would venerate the Windsors because they were born millionaires and get to live like billionaires on the government dime.
In America when you give all your white elephant properties to the government to maintain, your family doesn’t get to use them in perpetuity.

@Hawaii_Jake, no, it wasn’t off. Don’t blow it now. I took you to be using the singular correctly since you were referring to a single item. I used the plural form in making a generalization.

@ibstubro Actually, most of the wealth in the Windsor family comes from investments they made as stockholders centuries ago in companies like the East and West India Companies, The Virginia Company (which eventually failed but the family got out in time), Lloyd’s, BP, Barlclay’s (assets: $2.42 trillion), the Bank of England (until full nationalization in 1946) and many other industries world-wide, including a curious amount of control in world Uranium. Many of these companies are now large multi-faceted corporations that have subsidiaries all over the world under different names and many are into banking and insurance.

Granted, when they made these investments, the enterprise required their licensing to organize and operate and would gladly trade stock for the pleasure (duress?), but the only thing the Brits pay for is maintenance on the family’s homes and lands (which the government would probably preserve anyway) and the same protections we provide our more important government officials. Even if her titles and lands were taken away, Elizabeth would still be the richest woman in the world coming in at an estimated $3 trillion in assets.

Ah, @Espiritus_Corvus. That wasn’t anywhere near the amount I saw online.
I believe you. As with any tremendous wealth there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors involved.

The figure I’d seen was in the neighborhood of $500 million, and if that was the case free maintenance and security would soon start to look like a bargain.

@ibstubro, I thought three trillion was a bit much as well, but there were estimates as high as seven. I’d like to see Forbes on this and then I’d like to see how they were able to track it all. All sources agree that she is one rich stand-alone lady and although the amounts of her net worth differ, all agree that the family lifestyle wouldn’t change except for the fact that they wouldn’t have to make all those annoying state visits throughout the year and their kids might have a bit more privacy to sow their wild oats and make all the stupid mistakes all kids make without ending up on the front page..