Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
vhqpa
Topic Author
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:21 pm

monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:58 am

After an interesting but off topic discussion on monarchies in the ”GOP Senator comes out against democracy thread" I figured it deserved it's own thread.

This is mainly aimed at posters in other monarchies, not just the Commonwealth realms but other monarchies too (Spain, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands etc.)

What is the public sentiment about the monarchy in your country today? And how much has this changed over time?

As far as Australia goes there's no real appetite for change for the time being. There was an unsuccessful referendum on subject back in 1999. Personally I have no strong opinion one way or the other. I feel that the sentiment among Australians is that the monarchy is an old fashioned establishment harking back to the colonial days that is largely irrelevant today. Although the majority of my ancestors migrated from England and Ireland, I have to go back at least four generations to find an ancestor born outside of Australia, and therefore don't feel any connection to those two countries. Having said that I feel Queen Elizabeth II as an individual is generally well liked, (although more as a celebrity rather than some formal authority figure) and Australians for the most part are quite happy with the status quo. Although as most Australians haven't known any other monarch. I do wonder how quickly the republican movement comes back when the time comes that she is no longer our reigning monarch.

Interestingly I was watching an old SANFL grand final on YouTube the other day and as late as 1980 they had these huge union jacks marked at each goal square, which I thought was quite odd for a game that isn't played outside Australia. So obviously there has been a huge shift in public opinion since.


I was too young to vote for the 1999 referendum but I do remember the scaremongering campaign from the no camp that if we were to become a republic, we would get stuck with a unelected (by the people) president (insinuating a US style presidency).
 
bennett123
Posts: 10929
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:12 am

IMO, a monarchy still has a place, and I doubt that many in the UK would support a change. Doubtless the politicians who would like to be President and live in Buck House have a different perspective.

In terms of the power of the monarchy, I give you Spain 1981.

Would an announcement by a President have had the same effect, personally I doubt it.,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Span ... at_attempt
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:17 am

vhqpa wrote:
After an interesting but off topic discussion on monarchies in the ”GOP Senator comes out against democracy thread" I figured it deserved it's own thread.

This is mainly aimed at posters in other monarchies, not just the Commonwealth realms but other monarchies too (Spain, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands etc.)

What is the public sentiment about the monarchy in your country today? And how much has this changed over time?
Yes, I watched that "interesting" discussion from the sidelines, and found it most amusing.

I'm going to start the ball rolling with NORWAY.

Firstly, I'm not Norwegian. Secondly there are several notable contributors to a.net that most definitely are Norwegian, or have lived there for numerous years.
So let's hear from them. Please.

Meanwhile, I feel Norway deserves special mention because Prince Carl of Denmark was elected to the throne as King Haakon VII by public referendum, in 1905. :o

Yes, you read that correctly. 1905 !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Norw ... referendum

And in fact it was the prince himself who insisted that the Norwegian people have a chance to decide whether they wanted to retain a monarchy. (the alternative being a republic)

His son, King Olav V was immensely popular, resulting in the nickname Folkekongen ("The People's King"). In a 2005 poll by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Olav was voted "Norwegian of the Century"

In turn, his son, Harald ascended to the throne in 1991. And as we all know, Harald V should really be Harald VI, because he is the sixth King of Norway to bear that name. However, one of his predecessors, Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson (ca.958 to ca. 986) is not usually assigned a regnal number.

And yes, it is because of him, over 1000 years ago, that we have Bluetooth technology here today. :lol:

(usual credit to wikipedia for filling in the blanks in my memory)
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:19 pm

I think Norway’s king is a good man, but his son is a complete idiot. I’d prefer to see him passed over for his daughter. I’d like to see the same thing happen with our Monarchy, I’d like to see Charles skipped and William take the thrown when his grandmother passes
 
Bostrom
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:27 pm

vhqpa wrote:
After an interesting but off topic discussion on monarchies in the ”GOP Senator comes out against democracy thread" I figured it deserved it's own thread.

This is mainly aimed at posters in other monarchies, not just the Commonwealth realms but other monarchies too (Spain, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands etc.)

What is the public sentiment about the monarchy in your country today? And how much has this changed over time?


A few comments from Sweden:

Support for the monarchy is pretty strong, I did a quick google search and found a poll from 2016 where 65% of Swedes were in favour of the monarchy and 24% wanted to abolish it. But it also noted that the support has been decreasing over time. Although the Crown princess is a pretty popular person, so if she ascends to the throne there might be an increase in support for the monarchy.

The social democratic party officially wants to abolish the monarchy, but despite having been in power for most of the postwar period they have never done it. Probably because they realise that it would be an extremely unpopular decision.
 
GDB
Posts: 14478
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:00 pm

It is striking that when some in the UK on the hard left of the Labour Party, (in truth few in number and diminishing since Corbyn went), as well some generally much more moderate but who attribute the ills of the nation, including us not being more like the Social Democracies of Europe, (a view I actually share), to our being a constitutional monarchy, I always think 'have they not heard of Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and even Sweden FFS!'.
Then the Spanish example though more recently they have blotted their copybook somewhat.

It seems to me an excuse to blame that institution on their political failures.
Bad history too, did having a Monarch prevent the Attlee government's huge reforms?
Or the wave of social liberal reforms under Wilson (via Home Secretary Roy Jenkins) in the 1960's?

In 2011, when William and Kate married, there was the usual celebrations and an almighty piss-up in London, even coverage in a paper at best agnostic towards the monarchy reported this happy, virtually crime free event.
Then they met up with Republic, a group who campaigns to end the institution, it was a few people essentially muttering about how stupid it all this is with the implication that those crowds don't know their own minds.
That does not sound to me like a winning strategy.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:34 pm

I am a Swede, I consider that during time we have got a some good kings and we have got some disasters....

Important is that from late 1300 to 1520 Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland had the same kings in the Kalmar Union in order to handle the effects of the black death.

During the last 200 years I consider that the first Bernadotte born middle class in France was very smart avoiding another war with Russia over Finland and increasing the output of farming but later the Karl XV initiated the building of rail networks and industry but also miss handled situation when famine struck in 1860s and started both migration to USA and also started the forces leading to the modern Sweden. By the way both were kings over Norway as well :-)

The current king and royal family I do not know what to think of...
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:42 am

As a Brit I'm fairly pro monarchy. It's a business nowadays; the Queen actually returns money to the Nation via various assets held in her name.

She has some residual power but the benefit is mostly pageantry and the tourism it creates. That's a big sum for the Nation over an d above what it costs to keep the Royals.

So why shoot yourself in the foot and get rid? When Willy gets the fancy hat it'll be the piss-up of the century.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:59 am

Under my country's current contstitution, my head of state cannot be anyone other than a member of a single family living on the other side of the planet. That family deigns to allow a resident of my country to be their representative. The family prioritises the needs of their country of residence over those of the other countries which they rule.

My own preference is for changes to our constitution that allows my country to choose its head of state, but for the powers of that head of state to be largely ceremonial, as it is currently. My personal preference is for the head of state to be chosen by a majority of 2/3 of federal parliamentarians, rather than a popularity contest.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2938
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:14 am

The "approval rating" for the Royal Danish household is around 80%, and has been around 75 to 90% over the last 30 years. However, roughly 25% thinks HRH Queen Margrethe II should abdicate in favour of her son, HRH CP Frederik, who is immensely popular and seems incapable of putting a foot wrong.

That's not going to happen though; the Queen is of the firm conviction the only way to leave the throne is feet first. Unlike the Netherlands, our monarchy does not have a tradition of the monarch abdicating early. I've met both of HRH CP Frederik and HRH Prince Joachim at non-official events and have immense respect and fondness for both of them.

HRH CP Frederik has appeared in a number of television shows, each of which has only proven that he's a thoughtful, charming, intelligent, funny and down to earth guy. Here's the latest one: https://play.tv2.dk/programmer/rejser-e ... en-224267/
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15931
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:20 am

We have seen in the last century a number of monarchies either disappearing or marginalized as to any authority or power in governing in Europe and Asia, retained (or for Spain returned) for some sense of stability. Belgium has a barely functioning elected government and the royalty (along with the EU) keeping the country together. Some in Asia, one country in Africa with a independent monarchy and those on the Saudi peninsula are deeply problematic as rule as depots, have terrible human rights records and are rich beyond any reason while their 'subjects' starve or face jail for any minor challenge to the Throne. In 1945, the power of the royalty in Japan was considerably reduced due to their part in supporting wars for generations and in particular WW II.
.
I suspect in the next 20-50 years more will disappear, be overthrown, further marginalized, lose their wealth. The anti-Racism protests in the last several years and in particular this year in the USA have inspired some countries to challenge connections to royalty due to their historical involvement in colonialism and slavery. This is a potentially growing movement with some of the UK Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. Other European royal families also gained much wealth by colonialism and enslavement, like in Belgium, are facing challenges as well. Those in the Saudi Peninsula are like a real life 'Game of Thorns' with assassinations, violence, subrogation of their people, support of a State religion. Many royalties also limit criticism of them, their existence or their abuses. Some like the UK have narrowed who can be defined as 'royalty' along with it privileges both financial and status in society. Some may face reductions in subsidies from taxpayers, forced to turn in their personal wealth to the State, palaces become museums.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1406
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:57 am

ltbewr wrote:
We have seen in the last century a number of monarchies either disappearing or marginalized as to any authority or power in governing in Europe and Asia, retained (or for Spain returned) for some sense of stability. Belgium has a barely functioning elected government and the royalty (along with the EU) keeping the country together.

Uhhm, Belgium has a barely functioning royalty either. The former king refused the follow court orders, the current king is socially awkward and his brother is plain shady.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:37 pm

Kent350787 wrote:
Under my country's current contstitution, my head of state cannot be anyone other than a member of a single family living on the other side of the planet. That family deigns to allow a resident of my country to be their representative. The family prioritises the needs of their country of residence over those of the other countries which they rule.

My own preference is for changes to our constitution that allows my country to choose its head of state, but for the powers of that head of state to be largely ceremonial, as it is currently. My personal preference is for the head of state to be chosen by a majority of 2/3 of federal parliamentarians, rather than a popularity contest.


I think if Chuck was skipped and Willie became king opinions would change. He’s very popular and well regarded in Australia and New Zealand.

Having the Windsor’s as head of state is also very cheap.
 
User avatar
CrimsonNL
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:51 pm

It varies wildly here in The Netherlands. I'd say our royal family is generally liked, but I don't think approval ratings would be as high as some mentioned in this thread. Our king is an interesting man, who pilots KLM 737's on the side. And we have quite a charming queen! Their daughters aren't really of an age yet when they can start careers or embarrass themselves and their family in public. But I'm sure that will happen at some point in the future :D

The people here that don't like having a royal family always complain about their money. Very Dutch indeed. Every so often there will be a controversy about the amount of money they receive from the state, which I also think is on the high side for 2020 standards. But then I do believe they also generate income and good publicity for the country. For example when the king and queen accompany trade delegations to foreign states, where in some cases they still hold royals in very high regard.

Personally I like the royal family, as well as having a monarchy it as a Dutch tradition. Celebrating King's Day on April 27th, is one of the very rare moments (outside of international sports events) where you can see the Dutch express some nationalism and pride. Although in part it's also just because we like it as an excuse to drink and throw a party. ;)
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:28 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
Under my country's current contstitution, my head of state cannot be anyone other than a member of a single family living on the other side of the planet. That family deigns to allow a resident of my country to be their representative. The family prioritises the needs of their country of residence over those of the other countries which they rule.

My own preference is for changes to our constitution that allows my country to choose its head of state, but for the powers of that head of state to be largely ceremonial, as it is currently. My personal preference is for the head of state to be chosen by a majority of 2/3 of federal parliamentarians, rather than a popularity contest.


I think if Chuck was skipped and Willie became king opinions would change. He’s very popular and well regarded in Australia and New Zealand.

Having the Windsor’s as head of state is also very cheap.


Cheaper than establishing a local monarchy of the same type, but I can't see why a President couldn't simply continue with the structure the Governor General already has. Travle costs would probably increase, as a President would be recognised as head of state internationally, unlike the Governor General.

In Australia I don't see the type of trigger for change, although it keeps bubbling away as an issue for a large minority. Having strongly monarchist prime ministers such as Howard and Abbott taking our nation backwards in so many ways really hasn't helped. I think if the referendum had been around 94-95 it would have succeeded.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 6063
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:22 am

Support for the monarchy in Norway seems to remain stable around and mostly above the 70 percent mark. In an opinion poll in 2012 93% of the people agreed the current Monarch does a good job for the country.



Kiwirob wrote:
I think Norway’s king is a good man, but his son is a complete idiot. I’d prefer to see him passed over for his daughter. I’d like to see the same thing happen with our Monarchy, I’d like to see Charles skipped and William take the thrown when his grandmother passes



Why is Haakon Magnus a complete idiot ?
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8856
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:00 am

Kent350787 wrote:
Under my country's current contstitution, my head of state cannot be anyone other than a member of a single family living on the other side of the planet. That family deigns to allow a resident of my country to be their representative. The family prioritises the needs of their country of residence over those of the other countries which they rule.

My own preference is for changes to our constitution that allows my country to choose its head of state, but for the powers of that head of state to be largely ceremonial, as it is currently. My personal preference is for the head of state to be chosen by a majority of 2/3 of federal parliamentarians, rather than a popularity contest.


I largely agree with you, but right now the majority opinion in Australia is most people don't care one way or the other. Most agree in principle with the idea of not having a British head of state, but also don't think it is worth the time and effort to change a system that isn't broken

Among our last five prime ministers, three have been committed republicans (Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull), and one was a committed monarchist (Abbott), while Morrison to the best of my knowledge has never expressed an opinion, and is basically in line with the national sentiment. Despite having three republican PMs, none of them even suggested holding another referendum. This was largely because they knew it would fail, but that in turn is in part because nobody can figure out what model a republic would look like.

The system you propose is basically the option at the 1999 referendum. Some speculate that a system with a directly elected president would have won that election. The other school of thought is that most Australians have no interest in the American system. So we go around in circles. Part of the reason the republican movement waned after 99 is they never agreed among themselves what model to put forward at the next referendum.

Incidentally I disagree that the president in that model would become the international "leader". This is the Irish system, and in Ireland the Taoiseach (prime minister) is very much considered the leader of the country, overseas as well as at home. The functions of the President of Ireland are almost entirely ceremonial, are very similar to the GG (with the exception of being the Queen's representative, of course!)

I personally wonder whether it is necessary to have a "president" at all? Why could the prime minister not just be the head of state? There is actually precedent of this in Australia at the sub-national level, as the ACT does not have royal representation. The six states have a Governor and the Northern Territory has an Administrator, but the ACT has nothing. Some people erroneously assume that it's the GG, but that is incorrect. Legislation in the ACT does not receive royal assent, it comes into force after passing the Assembly.

My one concern with not having a supra-parliament structure is that it is the last check against tyranny. The monarchy currently, and president in your model, has the reserve power to dissolve parliament, and therefore force an election, if the prime minister decided to rule as a de facto dictator by not dissolving parliament in order to maintain their majority in perpetuity. Of course them exercising their power would cause a constitutional crisis, but would at least force the decision back to the people. If someone didn't have that power you would probably need to codify in the Constitution a role for the High Court in taking an activist role in maintaining parliamentary order, but that in itself could be messy as it diminishes the independence of the judicial branch (which in the Westminster system is the only truly independent branch) and could encourage vexatious litigation by political opponents to the government of the day. In the ACT the check on unlimited power is the Self-Government Act, which is Commonwealth legislation. If the Commonwealth Parliament repealed that act then that would abolish the ACT Assembly and the ACT executive government. At the Commonwealth level there would not be such an obvious check on legislative and executive power.

So we come back to the 1999/Irish model, which in turn takes us back to if the change is as small as just changing the name and official function of the GG then why bother? It's no wonder that the majority of Australians can't be bothered thinking about this!
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:04 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Support for the monarchy in Norway seems to remain stable around and mostly above the 70 percent mark. In an opinion poll in 2012 93% of the people agreed the current Monarch does a good job for the country.



Kiwirob wrote:
I think Norway’s king is a good man, but his son is a complete idiot. I’d prefer to see him passed over for his daughter. I’d like to see the same thing happen with our Monarchy, I’d like to see Charles skipped and William take the thrown when his grandmother passes



Why is Haakon Magnus a complete idiot ?


I've met him and wasn't impressed, his wife is even worse, I don't understand how that match was ever approved.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:06 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
I largely agree with you, but right now the majority opinion in Australia is most people don't care one way or the other. Most agree in principle with the idea of not having a British head of state, but also don't think it is worth the time and effort to change a system that isn't broken!


This 100%, if it ain't broke don't fix it.There's also implication for Maori in NZ if the crown is removed and we become a republic.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 6018
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:17 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
I largely agree with you, but right now the majority opinion in Australia is most people don't care one way or the other. Most agree in principle with the idea of not having a British head of state, but also don't think it is worth the time and effort to change a system that isn't broken!


This 100%, if it ain't broke don't fix it.There's also implication for Maori in NZ if the crown is removed and we become a republic.


The Queen could be replaced with a purely ceremonial and mostly powerless president, a bit like in Germany, which would be nominated/elected by the parliament or some other democratically representative institution.

It would allow to keep the same governing system while doing away with the increasingly out of place link with UK monarchy and making the OZ / Kiwi government purely indigenous.

Ditto Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth countries who still have the Queen on their money, for that matter.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:08 pm

Most monarchies realise that in order to survive today they depend on the mercy of their people.

The problem is that they are still humans and mess up like in Spain.

Will spain be a monarchy in 20 years? I would say no.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:26 pm

We still have some guillotines ready for you in case you need some help.

To me the point of a monarchy nowadays is conservatism. Keeping something from old times. So wanting a monarchy to be modern, to skip one heir in favor of another, doesn't make sense. If you do that, you undermine monarchy itself.
 
Redd
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:32 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Support for the monarchy in Norway seems to remain stable around and mostly above the 70 percent mark. In an opinion poll in 2012 93% of the people agreed the current Monarch does a good job for the country.



Kiwirob wrote:
I think Norway’s king is a good man, but his son is a complete idiot. I’d prefer to see him passed over for his daughter. I’d like to see the same thing happen with our Monarchy, I’d like to see Charles skipped and William take the thrown when his grandmother passes



Why is Haakon Magnus a complete idiot ?


I've met him and wasn't impressed, his wife is even worse, I don't understand how that match was ever approved.


Maybe you should have let him know it was his role to impress you? Then he might have come through for you.
 
M564038
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:15 pm

As a Social-Democrat, by default I am anti-monarchy.
It is a ridicolous form of government that we would never have entered into today.

However, as so many other Norwegians, I don’t want to change the monarchy we currently have.
They represent a continuity and wide horizon and long lines that is rarely represented by elected politicans today. Harald V is old now, but as a boy he was a frequent house guest of the Roosevelts during the war. During the german invasion in 1940, he was a priority target as a small boy. He and his father was both good friends with Churchill. We are talking real history here, represented in the now.
When he acts like a real multiculturalist, preaching tolerance and non-discrimination in his speeches, he does so having watched 8 decades of politics from a very special vantage point.
His grandfather was democratically elected to be king in 1905, and after a couple of decades of trying and failing (politicians don’t get to do that) he made some incredible smart strategic choices with his limited power in the 20’s and 30’s. He stopped the right wing sabotaging the emerging social-democrats from gaining power, stabilizing the very volatile political situation that caused so much trouble in so many countries at the time from being radicalized.

Even the Communists where jokingly refered to as the Royal Norwegian Comunist Party at the time.

And the Nazis was begging him for support without getting it, even with his own life in danger. Very strong stuff in those times.

As for the next generation, I don’t share Kiwirob’s sentiments, I have met the current king and queen only on a couple of occasions, sort of meet and greet settings. They do seem like very warm and sincere people, thats their job. However I know a bit more about the next generation. I have mer them a few times through common aquaintanses. Not in offcial business, but through them being child-hood friends, of both.

No one that knows anything about them personally or grew up with them has anything bad to say! I also know the guy that set them up as a couple, he’s a good guy, and hasn’t got anything bad to say either.

They seem like «whole wood» from everything I can gather, although I don’t keep them sacred and I am still a republican at heart.

Kiwirob wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Support for the monarchy in Norway seems to remain stable around and mostly above the 70 percent mark. In an opinion poll in 2012 93% of the people agreed the current Monarch does a good job for the country.



Kiwirob wrote:
I think Norway’s king is a good man, but his son is a complete idiot. I’d prefer to see him passed over for his daughter. I’d like to see the same thing happen with our Monarchy, I’d like to see Charles skipped and William take the thrown when his grandmother passes



Why is Haakon Magnus a complete idiot ?


I've met him and wasn't impressed, his wife is even worse, I don't understand how that match was ever approved.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:53 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
So we come back to the 1999/Irish model, which in turn takes us back to if the change is as small as just changing the name and official function of the GG then why bother? It's no wonder that the majority of Australians can't be bothered thinking about this!


I'll be upfront - I voted yes in 1999, as did over 2/3 of my electorate. I was so in favour of change that it's the only vote where I've handed out "how to vote" cards.

As we know, it was the 6th Prime Minister, Howard, who managed to bring the Republican push that had formed under the more outward looking and optimistic Labor governments to a head, but also sowed division by forcing a yes/no vote rather than a threshold question.

That said, I tend to agree that there is no longer a pressing will amongst the population for change. There remains a significant minority in support, and those continuing to argue the case. However, there hasn't been a strong enough government since 1999 to make the case for considering change once again.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:16 am

Redd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Support for the monarchy in Norway seems to remain stable around and mostly above the 70 percent mark. In an opinion poll in 2012 93% of the people agreed the current Monarch does a good job for the country.






Why is Haakon Magnus a complete idiot ?


I've met him and wasn't impressed, his wife is even worse, I don't understand how that match was ever approved.


Maybe you should have let him know it was his role to impress you? Then he might have come through for you.


I probably should have :D
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:56 am

I believe in the monarchy, because I can see that they're the last bastion between crazy politicians and absolute power.

2020 is indeed a crazy year in Malaysian politics, and our King is the one who maintains some semblance of calm in the midst of all this craziness.
 
Redd
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:27 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Redd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I've met him and wasn't impressed, his wife is even worse, I don't understand how that match was ever approved.


Maybe you should have let him know it was his role to impress you? Then he might have come through for you.


I probably should have :D


lol... :rotfl: Next time!
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:25 am

Redd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Redd wrote:

Maybe you should have let him know it was his role to impress you? Then he might have come through for you.


I probably should have :D


lol... :rotfl: Next time!


The second time I met him was on a plane, I was waiting for the toilet and dropped the mother of all stinky farts right in his face. I didn't know it was the clown prince until after I came out of the toilet and had to wait behind the FA who was preparing him a coffee.
 
Electra
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:58 am

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:00 pm

As others have very correctly posted, in regards to Australia, the likelihood of any change to the current system anytime soon is very low.

A successful referendum in Australia requires the support of the majority of voters in a majority of states; which already sets the bar quite high. The 1999 result was not so much a rejection of a Republic, but rather a rejection of the way in which a President would have been selected. The pro-Monarchy campaign was very successful in achieving a result in favour of the Monarchy, without barely even referring to it, arguably a wise move given the Royal Family’s poor public image in the 1990s.

If another referendum were to occur now, the same old baseless concerns about parliament-selected President would again be at the forefront of any campaigns. Also, if the country didn’t vote to ditch the Royal family is the 1990s, when their public approval was much lower, it’s unlikely that it would today.

Those in power, even republicans, know that a referendum would be unsuccessful and therefore a waste of public funds and resources.

Australia is a highly stable country with a relatively middle class/wealthy population. To be honest, most people are content with the status quo and see little need to make any major changes.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:09 pm

CrimsonNL wrote:
It varies wildly here in The Netherlands. I'd say our royal family is generally liked, but I don't think approval ratings would be as high as some mentioned in this thread. Our king is an interesting man, who pilots KLM 737's on the side. And we have quite a charming queen! Their daughters aren't really of an age yet when they can start careers or embarrass themselves and their family in public. But I'm sure that will happen at some point in the future :D


You clearly missed Alexia's activity on TikTok. i will not show the links to what has been banned (or better: wha the Dutch royal family considered not smart behaviour of Alexia on TikTok), but she's now under supervision as she made some "mistakes".

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/06/this-14-year-old-princess-who-became-a-star-on-tik-tok.html
 
Agamadi
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:33 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:05 pm

Electra wrote:
As others have very correctly posted, in regards to Australia, the likelihood of any change to the current system anytime soon is very low.

A successful referendum in Australia requires the support of the majority of voters in a majority of states; which already sets the bar quite high. The 1999 result was not so much a rejection of a Republic, but rather a rejection of the way in which a President would have been selected. The pro-Monarchy campaign was very successful in achieving a result in favour of the Monarchy, without barely even referring to it, arguably a wise move given the Royal Family’s poor public image in the 1990s.

If another referendum were to occur now, the same old baseless concerns about parliament-selected President would again be at the forefront of any campaigns. Also, if the country didn’t vote to ditch the Royal family is the 1990s, when their public approval was much lower, it’s unlikely that it would today.

Those in power, even republicans, know that a referendum would be unsuccessful and therefore a waste of public funds and resources.

Australia is a highly stable country with a relatively middle class/wealthy population. To be honest, most people are content with the status quo and see little need to make any major changes.

This can be logically explained, although it seems to me that there are no limits to perfection and change is needed anyway. Some of the problems that have arisen during the fires in Australia have shown that not everything is so perfect.
 
Agamadi
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:33 pm

Re: monarchies in the 21st century

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:06 pm

M564038 wrote:
As a Social-Democrat, by default I am anti-monarchy.
It is a ridicolous form of government that we would never have entered into today.

However, as so many other Norwegians, I don’t want to change the monarchy we currently have.
They represent a continuity and wide horizon and long lines that is rarely represented by elected politicans today. Harald V is old now, but as a boy he was a frequent house guest of the Roosevelts during the war. During the german invasion in 1940, he was a priority target as a small boy. He and his father was both good friends with Churchill. We are talking real history here, represented in the now.
When he acts like a real multiculturalist, preaching tolerance and non-discrimination in his speeches, he does so having watched 8 decades of politics from a very special vantage point.
His grandfather was democratically elected to be king in 1905, and after a couple of decades of trying and failing (politicians don’t get to do that) he made some incredible smart strategic choices with his limited power in the 20’s and 30’s. He stopped the right wing sabotaging the emerging social-democrats from gaining power, stabilizing the very volatile political situation that caused so much trouble in so many countries at the time from being radicalized.

Even the Communists where jokingly refered to as the Royal Norwegian Comunist Party at the time.

And the Nazis was begging him for support without getting it, even with his own life in danger. Very strong stuff in those times.

As for the next generation, I don’t share Kiwirob’s sentiments, I have met the current king and queen only on a couple of occasions, sort of meet and greet settings. They do seem like very warm and sincere people, thats their job. However I know a bit more about the next generation. I have mer them a few times through common aquaintanses. Not in offcial business, but through them being child-hood friends, of both.

No one that knows anything about them personally or grew up with them has anything bad to say! I also know the guy that set them up as a couple, he’s a good guy, and hasn’t got anything bad to say either.

They seem like «whole wood» from everything I can gather, although I don’t keep them sacred and I am still a republican at heart.
Most recently, I wrote a study on this topic, I was helped by the service https://assignmentbro.com/uk/, which specializes in academic assistance to students.

I absolutely agree with you. very deep thoughts that respond within me.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: casinterest, EA CO AS, extender, StarAC17, vhqpa and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos