Why can’t Denmark, Great Britain ,Norway get rid of there monarchs?

[Yakov]

Arent they wasting your money, They do nothing in return for you

[Sétanta]

They are a nice reminder of the days where their national opinion was revelant. Well, I shouldn't say that, but no, they really have no purpose except for remembering their past, giving a face to the national identity and allowing for a person the average citizen can turn too.

[RusskiSoldat]

They are the embodiment of national stability as they show how little the nation has changed over the centuries, and as such are supposed to inspire a measure of confidence.
Spain's Juan Carlos is a great example of this: Franco, for all his radical fascist reforms, kept the monarchy (in theory and later in practice) as a symbol of stability. In other words, any government which rules with the consent of a constitutional monarch is subconsciously seen as pluralistic and stable in this day and age.
That's my theory, anyway. Another is that tabloids need a lot of rich people with nothing to do in order to get good stories.

[Yakov]

Another is that tabloids need a lot of rich people with nothing to do in order to get good stories.

Thats because you guys dont have hollywood

[Eric]

The Monarchy is a symbol of stability and prosperity, it inspires great loyalty and love from the people. You should talk to the people in Denmark, they love their Queen. I talked to one Police officer, he said that the Queen goes out walking often, and buys tomatoes and such things in the Market. I asked who protects her in such circumstances and the officer replied "Why, we all do" I think that's just lovely. Also, the Monarchy does do much for their people, they are spokesmen, and leaders, not neccasarily in direct power but more to inspire action in others, and royaltys often acts as diplomatic envoys. If Britain, for example, wished to enter into a trading agreement with Germany, they'd send the Queen, or the Duke of Edinburgh, or one of the Princes to visit with the German officials.

[Holger Danske]

Arent they wasting your money, They do nothing in return for you

Not true, they are actually bringing in a great return by attracting thousands of tourist, and even securing buisness deals (especially in asia) worth billions of dollars. They are one of the greatest international assets we have, and just the though that we still have kings and queens is actually quite cool.

Besides that, read Eric's post.

[MaximiIian]

If they're a big waste of money for doing nothing, then why don't you make them obligated to do something?
After all, they are monarchs.

[Nutsack]

Well they aren't a big waste of money, and they are doing something, so I don't see the problem here.

Long Live Karl Gustav! (Even though hes prone to making fun of)

[boofhead]

As much as the pommies attack and belittle their own monarch & her family (more than we Aussies do), I'd like to see the result if there was a real effort to get rid of them - there would be bloody mayhem!

[TenkiSoratoti]

As much as the pommies attack and belittle their own monarch & her family (more than we Aussies do), I'd like to see the result if there was a real effort to get rid of them - there would be bloody mayhem!

Well actually I've seen alot of you Convicts moan about the British Monarchy, so you're wrong there.

Britain, Republic? Pfft, I'd much rather salute to a person than a silly bit of cloth on a pole.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Well actually I've seen alot of you Convicts moan about the British Monarchy, so you're wrong there.

Er, no. We "moan" (or, rather, point out the extreme silliness) about the Australian Monarchy. It's just that they happen to be embodied in the same royal family for historical reasons. What you do with the British Monarchy is your business.

And our "moaning"/perfectly rational criticism has little to do with the personalities involved - just with the anachronism of a multicultural nation which long since outgrew simple "British" heritage sticking with this historical leftover institution. And with the illogicality of a nation that prides itself on its egalitarianism and inclusiveness maintaining an outdated institution which is inherently sexist, sectarian, elitist and contrary to everything Australians hold dear.

[LoZz]

i like my monarch and id die for her.

[Erik]

I've heard somewhere that Republics "waste" just as much on their heads of state and their traditions as Monarchies do.
So financially it wouldn't make a difference if we replaced them by an elected president.

The one thing I like about European Monarchies is that it ensures that no single politician gets too much power.
Because presidents are elected they always tend to get very powerful compared to prime-ministers who are merely appointed.
This for me is enough reason to tolerate our Monarchy.

(ps: I have a picture of my Queen in my userbar, but only because I couldn't find one without it, not because I like it)

[k995]

I've heard somewhere that Republics "waste" just as much on their heads of state and their traditions as Monarchies do.
So financially it wouldn't make a difference if we replaced them by an elected president.

Thats a myth, the salary of lets say bush is nothing compared what the royal houses in europe get from the taxpayers. Lets not forget its not just the king or queen who gets payed it children up until the xthe succesor in line that get money, add that all up and it gets really expensive.

The best thing to do would be to stop giving them taxpayers money, every royal house in europe is rich enough to take care of there own, I dont see why people that rich need more money.

The one thing I like about European Monarchies is that it ensures that no single politician gets too much power.
Because presidents are elected they always tend to get very powerful compared to prime-ministers who are merely appointed.
This for me is enough reason to tolerate our Monarchy.

Nonsense, the royal houses in europe have zero to almost zero power, they cannot stop a president getting more power simply because they have no say over politics, there function are just for protocol. take belgium for example in the 90 the king refused to sign a law (it was on abortion) the parliament just abolished the king, made belgium a republic for a day, the prime minister ratified the law and recreated the kingdom of belgium the next day, problem solved. It shows how little power royal houses have these days.

[Erik]

Nonsense, the royal houses in europe have zero to almost zero power, they cannot stop a president getting more power simply because they have no say over politics.

President?
We don't have a president!
That's the point.
We do have a prime-minister, but he's appointed by the Queen rather than elected like Presidents are, so he has no power either.

I rather have a Monarch+Prime-minister than a president exactly because the power of the Monarch+Prime-minister is purely ceremonial.
This ensures that parliament (the only elected body) is the highest authority.

PS: I don't see why the nationality of the Monarch should matter.
Our Royal family is mostly made up of German "blood" (both out current Queen and her Mother were married to a German), but that doesn't make them any less popular.
And our crown prince is married to an Argentinian, and she is very popular too.
In a way it's actually quite charming when they speak with a foreign accent.

[k995]

President?
We don't have a president!
That's the point.
We do have a prime-minister, but he's appointed by the Queen rather than elected like Presidents are, so he has no power either.

I meant prime minister

And as I said, most kings/Queens have no say in who becomes prime minister, so its the royal houses who have no power and the parliament (who deceides who becomes prime minister) have most of the power.

You are mixing up tradition with actual power. What would happen if the Queen refuses to appoint the next prime minister? Sho would loose, she can only hope that the people support her becaus she has little or no actual power left.

I rather have a Monarch+Prime-minister than a president exactly because the power of the Monarch+Prime-minister is purely ceremonial.
This ensures that parliament (the only elected body) is the highest authority.

parliament appoints the prime minister so they are largely the same, but the same goes for a president, he gets elected by the people in a no different way then if those people would elect members for parliament . The only difference is a president is more direct. While in parliament its the party themselves who deceide who becomes prime minister.

[Erik]

parliament appoints the prime minister so they are largely the same

Not true, like tBP explained.
Our system is a little different, but it comes down to the same thing: political parties decide on a prime-minister and the rest of a cabinet trough very complex and totally undemocratic process that takes place behind closed doors and sometimes even at secret locations.

Parliament has no say in this process, they just have to wait and see what the outcome is.
But it does have the power to fire the prime-minister, or anyone else in his cabinet, at any time they wish.

And since the prime-minister isn't elected in any way, while parliament is, there is nothing holding parliament back in their criticism and eventual dismiss of the prime-minister.
An unpopular prime-minister will loose his job very fast because even MP's from his own party would rather fire their prime-minister than loose votes at the next elections.

Our prime-minister is about to start his 4th term in just 4 years time.
That I think says enough about the volatility of his power.
Why he keeps trying is beyond me...

[Mooncabbage]

Well I suppose the monarchy is experienced at politics and power, and probably balance out the sillier ideas of elected officials in a way that could never happen in a true democracy. So I guess it's a good thing. Plus you can always rely on them when your politicians are acting up, so I guess there is security in their consistency.

Being Australian, the monarch isn't really a big deal, especially these days, but knighthoods and nobility have a certain charm, and inspire you to work towards something beyond your own ends, for the betterment of society.

I read in this textbook on Intelligence I have, that the overwhelming majority of American traitors did so for financial reasons, while in Great Britain nearly all turncoats did so for ideological reasons. Think about it.

[Holger Danske]

Being Australian, the monarch isn't really a big deal, especially these days, but knighthoods and nobility have a certain charm, and inspire you to work towards something beyond your own ends, for the betterment of society.

No monarchy, no knighthood and nobility.

[boofhead]

Well, I have to confess, QE2 has been mine since birth.

And she has never let me down