3 ms·

Is this true? Lots of Europe decided to keep their monarchies, as does Australia, NZ and Canada. This leaves out the US which is not solely the definition of 'W

Is this true? Lots of Europe decided to keep their monarchies, as does Australia, NZ and Canada. This leaves out the US which is not solely the definition of 'Western Culture' Also they don't tend to favour the upper class there's broad support across ideologies and social class that support them. In fact, the republican movements tend to come from upper classes, well true in New Zealand and Australia anyway (not sure of the other monarchies)

Houshalter 10y ago
They keep them in symbolic roles only. They have no real power. And even then there are movements to abolish them for consuming public tax dollars. Not every country had a violent or sudden change to democracy. But supporters of democracy still won in the West. Despite massive resistance at first. I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to their issues and their side of things. Europe has a terrible history of a ridiculously unequal and unfair aristocracy.
- neximo64 10y ago
  Regarding 'no real power', This is often said but its not true. There have been occasions the monarchy have used their power but it goes largely unreported. One such occasion is 1975 in Australia where the government was thrown out using the monarch's power. The monarch hardly uses this power but it does if things go awry. Also the 'consuming public tax dollars' argument is incorrect. The monarchy of the UK pays net tax-in through a deal the government did with monarchy 300 years ago (in short the UK government earns a tidy profit (about £300m/y) from the management of their estate in exchange for a small stipend each year, consistently renewed every period). The monarchs of other countries also have their estates that pay for them in a similar way (don't count Spain though) Perhaps the monarchs favour the upper class though this has changed largely for the positive over the past hundred years. I would hardly say that today it is an unfair aristocracy, though. On the democracy argument, there have been multiple referendums to put in place a republic but they don't go through.
  - Rayearth 10y ago
    To add to this, Canada in 2008 went through a "parliamentary dispute" that Canada's Governor General played a large part in the resolution of. While the Governor General is pretty much chosen by Canadian ministers in a democratic fashion, on paper the officer is appointed by the Queen and ideally represents her in Canada. So I do agree that the monarchy has some influence on the Commonwealth, more than just having "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn".
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    I'm familiar that some monarchs technically still have some ability to influence government. But they use it very rarely, because they know if they overuse it, it will be taken away. You mention Australia, but Australia did try to leave the commonwealth in 1999, perhaps in response to that. The only reason they didn't is because the vote was split on exactly what system of government to replace it with. I've heard the argument that royalty is a net gain in taxes. My point was that they aren't universally popular and there are movements to remove them. Anyway the fact they own lots of land is silly, since it was inherited from centuries ago, when it was originally taken by force. There is nothing stopping the government from cutting them off and continuing to use their land.
    - neximo64 10y ago
      The 1999 vote wasn't to leave the Commonwealth, it was an explicit referendum on whether Australia should become a republic (and it would remain part of the commonwealth). Australia is a 'Commonwealth' in itself. Australia's movement away as a reaction of the monarch's use of power in 1975 was the 1984 Australia act where the references to the UK were removed from the constitution (Queen of the UK -> Queen of Australia). It's hard to argue using the popularity argument. In Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the monarch is near universally popular. The argument for a sovereign head of state is a complex one, the Queen isn't considered as an ordinary family inheriting a lot, its a family which is essentially the head of state and the 'inheritance' goes towards running the country and the benefit of all. I would understand the disdain from an American perspective, but there's a lot more to it than what is conveyed - the constitutional monarchy system of today isn't like the one 300 years ago, its a wonderful system - to many better than the US system of government, admittedly myself included (I'm an American Politics major if you think there's any bias). Keep in mind the monarch is there by choice - through democratic vote. As for Australia the 1999 referendum wasn't the first one of its sort either.

Houshalter 10y ago

They keep them in symbolic roles only. They have no real power. And even then there are movements to abolish them for consuming public tax dollars. Not every country had a violent or sudden change to democracy. But supporters of democracy still won in the West. Despite massive resistance at first. I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to their issues and their side of things. Europe has a terrible history of a ridiculously unequal and unfair aristocracy.

neximo64 10y ago
Regarding 'no real power', This is often said but its not true. There have been occasions the monarchy have used their power but it goes largely unreported. One such occasion is 1975 in Australia where the government was thrown out using the monarch's power. The monarch hardly uses this power but it does if things go awry. Also the 'consuming public tax dollars' argument is incorrect. The monarchy of the UK pays net tax-in through a deal the government did with monarchy 300 years ago (in short the UK government earns a tidy profit (about £300m/y) from the management of their estate in exchange for a small stipend each year, consistently renewed every period). The monarchs of other countries also have their estates that pay for them in a similar way (don't count Spain though) Perhaps the monarchs favour the upper class though this has changed largely for the positive over the past hundred years. I would hardly say that today it is an unfair aristocracy, though. On the democracy argument, there have been multiple referendums to put in place a republic but they don't go through.
- Rayearth 10y ago
  To add to this, Canada in 2008 went through a "parliamentary dispute" that Canada's Governor General played a large part in the resolution of. While the Governor General is pretty much chosen by Canadian ministers in a democratic fashion, on paper the officer is appointed by the Queen and ideally represents her in Canada. So I do agree that the monarchy has some influence on the Commonwealth, more than just having "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn".
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I'm familiar that some monarchs technically still have some ability to influence government. But they use it very rarely, because they know if they overuse it, it will be taken away. You mention Australia, but Australia did try to leave the commonwealth in 1999, perhaps in response to that. The only reason they didn't is because the vote was split on exactly what system of government to replace it with. I've heard the argument that royalty is a net gain in taxes. My point was that they aren't universally popular and there are movements to remove them. Anyway the fact they own lots of land is silly, since it was inherited from centuries ago, when it was originally taken by force. There is nothing stopping the government from cutting them off and continuing to use their land.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    The 1999 vote wasn't to leave the Commonwealth, it was an explicit referendum on whether Australia should become a republic (and it would remain part of the commonwealth). Australia is a 'Commonwealth' in itself. Australia's movement away as a reaction of the monarch's use of power in 1975 was the 1984 Australia act where the references to the UK were removed from the constitution (Queen of the UK -> Queen of Australia). It's hard to argue using the popularity argument. In Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the monarch is near universally popular. The argument for a sovereign head of state is a complex one, the Queen isn't considered as an ordinary family inheriting a lot, its a family which is essentially the head of state and the 'inheritance' goes towards running the country and the benefit of all. I would understand the disdain from an American perspective, but there's a lot more to it than what is conveyed - the constitutional monarchy system of today isn't like the one 300 years ago, its a wonderful system - to many better than the US system of government, admittedly myself included (I'm an American Politics major if you think there's any bias). Keep in mind the monarch is there by choice - through democratic vote. As for Australia the 1999 referendum wasn't the first one of its sort either.