Why are there monarchies in the 21st century

Mutant z

Why are there countries that still have monarchies in the 21st century such as the UK, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands just to name a few the whole thing seems extremely outdated imo. Surely heads of state should be elected on merit not because they happen to come from a particular womb . I'm baffled by how many Brits fawn over their royals who they never even elected at least in Ireland we can elect our own head of state why would anyone support something as undemocratic as a monarchy it seems strange. The thought of a serving head of state being there through birth and for life doesn't appeal to me at all, why does it to so many others i just dont understand it, how can anyone claim to favour democracy and at the same time support an unelected monarch it makes no sense to me surely its better to have an elected head of state.

mikemac2

Off with the OP’s head!

TheValeyard

mikemac2 wrote: »

Off with the OP’s head!

No point. He's a mutant. Just grow back again

Carry

Mutant z wrote: »

(...) surely its better to have an elected head of state.

Like Trump? Just saying.

I think people yearn for tradition and something that doesn't change. Change can be frightening. It gives some sort of stable national identity in a modern ever-changing world, I assume.

Besides, the modern European monarchies don't have any political say, so democracy is not threatened by some mad king or queen. They just have to look stately, pretty, well put-out and utter some non-offending words when needed. And they are always there, like mammy and daddy and all the uncles, aunts and the rest of the family bunch that are embarassing but you wouldn't want to miss in your life.

I'm not into royalty at all but I can see their appeal.

Mutant z

I get your point but its still an unelected position and one that cant be voted out i dont know why a medieval tradition should have any relevance in modern times.

Zebra3

With regard to the British monarchy, it’s also a sectarian position.

Legislated bigotry in a so-called modern 21st C democracy.

Gatling

People are happy to have a monarchy ,if the people are happy leave them to it ,who are we to question.

It's like asking why have an elected government when the EU calls the shots

Ten of Swords

Brunei, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Swaziland and Saudi Arabia are the 6 monarchies that still have absolute power in their countries. They are the functioning government, not ceremonial.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

To each their own. Why have a figurehead president or an ineffectual second house of senators? If the people of a country are happy with their monarchs leave them to it,

murpho999

Ashton Shrilling Performance wrote: »

To each their own. Why have a figurehead president or an ineffectual second house of senators? If the people of a country are happy with their monarchs leave them to it,

The president here is more than a figurehead and is chosen by the people.

Also, calling the Seanad ineffectual is not understanding what's its role is and it was only populism that called for it to be scrapped and I'm glad the referendum was defeated.

I like it that Ireland is a republic and does not have a silly elite monarchy with silly titles and functions.

jaxxx

Because humans are stupid; always have been, always will be.

Harry Palmr

Michael D was probably hoping he just got retuned for a second term by default, just sayin....

James Bond Junior

I think in the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that the Windsor family cost the British taxpayer about £252million a year yet they generate about £1.8billion in revenue to the exchequer on a yearly basis. They are a brand and a bloody good one too. She might move here with Philly and the all the lads if Brexit doesn’t work out, we could do with that kind of dough.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4950897/queen-money-economy-monarchy-2017/

feargale

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Michael D was probably hoping he just got retuned for a second term by default, just sayin....

WTF does just sayin' mean? You're either saying it or you're not.

Hector Bellend

How other countries choose to govern themselves is their concern

corner of hells

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How other countries choose to govern themselves is their concern

Of course it is , in fact if you think about it every country has been affected by royalty , for example the two most important royals to have an impact on the USA were BurgerKing and DairyQueen.

shakeitoff

In Europe, the ones that remain in some sort of quasi position of power, just luck, they now exist more as cultural institutions than anything else. Hard to believe they were still relevant in Europe till about 100 years ago.

cfuserkildare

shakeitoff wrote: »

In Europe, just luck, they now exist more as cultural institutions than anything else. Hard to believe they were still relevant in Europe till about 100 years ago.

They still exist because generally they are a huge attraction for tourists.
Some other countries still have not figured out how to bring in tourism outside of basic landmarks.

Austria!

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I think in the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that the Windsor family cost the British taxpayer about £252million a year yet they generate about £1.8billion in revenue to the exchequer on a yearly basis. They are a brand and a bloody good one too. She might move here with Philly and the all the lads if Brexit doesn’t work out, we could do with that kind of dough.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4950897/queen-money-economy-monarchy-2017/

Article doesn't go into detail, but visitors going to Royal attractions could just mean historical tourist sites.


And even if they did bring in loads of money, I don't think it's worth it. There's something so wrong about being born with that level of privilege, and with that level of compulsory support via taxation. I think it eats at the notion of a fair society.

Jennehy

The Sinn Fein president candidate better be hot.

shakeitoff

Austria! wrote: »

Article doesn't go into detail, but visitors going to Royal attractions could just mean historical tourist sites.


And even if they did bring in loads of money, I don't think it's worth it. There's something so wrong about being born with that level of privilege, and with that level of compulsory support via taxation. I think it eats at the notion of a fair society.

We're too civilised to overthrow them. Harry's ginger head should be on a stake.

Ash.J.Williams

cfuserkildare wrote: »

They still exist because generally they are a huge attraction for tourists.
Some other countries still have not figured out how to bring in tourism outside of basic landmarks.

That's the answer in a nutshell, it's business.

Jennehy

I’d give the queen one.

Mrs OBumble

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Some other countries still have not figured out how to bring in tourism outside of basic landmarks.

At the close of Willy Clancy Week, I think that's a tad unfair.

And over here in Galway, we still have a king too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy0Bvlz63OY

riffmongous

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I think in the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that the Windsor family cost the British taxpayer about £252million a year yet they generate about £1.8billion in revenue to the exchequer on a yearly basis. They are a brand and a bloody good one too. She might move here with Philly and the all the lads if Brexit doesn’t work out, we could do with that kind of dough.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4950897/queen-money-economy-monarchy-2017/

You'd still have most of that if you took away their privileged position, the likes of versailles, vienna dont seem to be doing too bad for tourism without an actual king living there

the_syco

Mutant z wrote: »

I get your point but its still an unelected position and one that cant be voted out i dont know why a medieval tradition should have any relevance in modern times.

Sounds like the church.

donegal_man

When most British people talk about replacing the monarchy they always seem to refer back to the joyless years of Cromwell's Commonwealth. Alternatively they consider the idea of Tony Blair or Boris Johnson as Head of State and immediately decide the status quo is actually pretty okay.

Donald Trump

Carry wrote: »

Like Trump? Just saying.

You called?
I'm the bigliest President ever


They want to make me king of America. I was offered an opportunity by Big Joe Joyce to become a king in your country. King of the travellers he said


Would have done it only for the whole shite'ing in buckets requirements. Couldn't get me fat arse positioned correctly over it

Donald Trump

donegal_man wrote: »

When most British people talk about replacing the monarchy they always seem to refer back to the joyless years of Cromwell's Commonwealth. Alternatively they consider the idea of Tony Blair or Boris Johnson as Head of State and immediately decide the status quo is actually pretty okay.

Money for nothing
and chicks for free

corner of hells

Donald Trump wrote: »

Money for nothing
and chicks for free

Donald , it's Dire Straits not Status Quo , ya fruit bat.

DickSwiveller Returns

Mutant z wrote: »

I get your point but its still an unelected position and one that cant be voted out i dont know why a medieval tradition should have any relevance in modern times.

Who cares if it is unelected? What's so good about electing useless politicians?

Witchie

I find it interesting here in Malaysia. Nine of the states have monarchs (some are hereditary like in the UK and others elected from members of the royal family of their state) and despite having a democratic government, they also have a king (or Agung) who every 5 years is elected by the other Kings as the head of whole country.

Most Malaysians I know are happy to have a monarch as they feel he gives them guidance and stability. But then again they still seem to love the British despite being a former colony....

DEFTLEFTHAND

They're still really present.

The next great royal event on the British Isles will be the making of King Charles III.

His Cornation ceremony will be epic.