"Monarchist or Republican" Topic

It seems like there are more republicans in a monarchy than monarchists in a Republic?

So what are you?

I'm undecided. I like the Norwegian Royals, they are perfectly ok full-time ambassadors.
But I do think it's an obsolete institution. but at the same time a republic brings with it, it's share of troubles.

So in the end I can't actualy answer my own question.

I'm a monarchist, and I live in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is a monarch.

Getting elected, getting the acclaim, seems to inflate a politician's ego even further than it was prior to an election. Given that many politicians have overly inflated opinions of themselves to begin with, the extra boost to the ego can make politicians feel they can act with impunity (at least until the next election).

I like the fact that our prime minister has to ask permission from the Crown's representative to make any actions of his government official. He literally must go to the Governor General's office and ask to have bills signed into law, or to even form a government for that matter (this applies to provincial premiers, too, for that matter). I like that they have this reminder that nothing they do is complete until they have permission. It's a only a token gesture (most of the time), but an important one.

Monarchist, for the same reason as willthepiper

Republican. I don't like the idea of Royalty in any form.

I am liberal. As long as there are checks and balances to your power, I do not care if you ere born, elected, or sorted to it. Absolutism is my foe, not how the holder of absolute power is chosen, or for that matters their number.

Republican, but if you were to do a close analysis, I'm not sure you'd find that a monarchy produces more bad leaders than a democracy -- at least in more-or-less modern history. I'm reading _A Short History of Byzantium_, and they seem to have more than their fair share of bad kings.

I'm starting to have some sympathy for a ceremonial monarchy. Mind you, I prefer--here's an obsolete term for you--republican simplicity, with little ceremony of any sort, and I much prefer a system under which the legislators and members of the executive know that this is NOT their regular job, and they'll go back to a farm, a factory or a school next year.

But if you can't get that, a ceremonial monarchy may be better than rendering sovereign honors to some politician until the man with real powers decides he really is special, not like or answerable to the people who elected him. I'm also a little tired of people having titles and authority because they're related to the politician.

But this is, thank Heaven, the Miniatures Page, not the Nation or the Federalist. I'm going to go paint some soldiers.

Depends on the monarch.

Republican. Ideally, I'd want a meritocracy, but absent that, republicanism is as close as we come.

I'm a monarchist, I have taken my coin, if you look at the work the British Royal family put in on behalf of the UK (even the republicans) it is outstanding. Another thing is the charity work and support they give, just look at Charles and the Princes trust, many people have been given a second chance.

Jules

Given modern politics and the influence of media moguls corrupting the democratic process I find I have more faith in Monarchy than in Republics, but that is based on a remarkably positive run of Monarchs operating within a parliamentary democracy. Would I have wanted Henry VIII, Charles Ist or James II in control? Not a chance!

Grudging monarchist.

What I don't want is a party apparatchik, hired-hand career politician lionised and elevated beyond his remit.

That guy's there to do a job – that's all.

Best way to avoid said lionisation?
Keep the 'top slot' occupied.
By some figurehead with a purely ceremonial role and no significant executive power whatsoever.

That seems workable to me: competent helmsman at the wheel, decorative figurehead up front, and no confusion between those two roles.

Also worth noting that – if you have a putative Republic, but proceed to laud your leading politician of the day with as much pomp & circumstance, titles & honorifics and state ceremony as if they were royalty – what you actually have there is an elective monarchy in all but name.

Republican.
I know it is a myth about Bernadotte's tattoo. but I agree with the quote. "Death to Kings"
The French had the right idea. I would not have operated the guillotine, but I would play the drums in Place de la Révolution.

YouTube link

At my heart I am a republican, but without civic virtue, neither system is sustainable.

The way people in the US go gaga over the royal family in the UK I have to wonder sometimes.

Swore an oath to the Crown in 1977, will not be called an oath breaker!

Republican. Not so much because this is my political direction, but because it is an utter inhuman system for the ones that have to carry it out. Having a person for a reasonable time (four to six years) with the function of "mediator" gives him or her the option of resignation after the duty is fulfilled. This does not need to happen, of course, but having the choice offers the possibility of a life, that royals obviously do not have.

I like having the monarchy around as a figure head that can represent the values of the country but without holding actual power.

Of course to borrow a joke from Dave Chapelle, when the revolution comes, they'll be the first to go, just to show we mean business ;-)

YouTube link

Absolute monarchy with a soldier king like
Alexander or Gustave Adolf. It is the only way to be sure.

Republican. And that's despite the fact that sometimes you don't get the government you vote for and often get the government you deserve.

Proud republican and I'll stay that way until Arthur Pendragon returns to the throne.

No anarchists?

Xenophon criticized the great political philosophers of his day for their endless haggling over the best form of government. He held that all you needed was a really good man to run things and the form of government was immaterial. He was right, but the getting of that man was the trick. On the other hand if you have a moral, decent, law abiding public that believed in personal responsibility and accountability any sort of system will suffice as well. A population that is not moral, decent, law abiding and public minded can only be ruled by the most cruel and brutal tyrant, and even then not when he or his minions are not about. On the other hand a moral, decent, law abiding public that believes in personal responsibility and accountability will hem in and render impotent the worst tyrant.

If you want to reform the state you must first reform the society.
If you want to reform society start with yourself.

Where do I throw my coin in the well?