Kate and William

UPDATE 03/06/2014: When we started this debate, the grumblings over the Spanish monarchy were still fairly subdued. However, with the news that Spain’s King Juan Carlos plans to abdicate and pass the throne to his son Felipe, tens of thousands of people have been taking to the streets across Spain and demanding a referendum on the future of the monarchy. Is it time for European countries to consider referendums on whether to keep their monarchies?

Europe’s royals have been in the news a fair bit this summer, with two abdications (first Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, then King Albert II of Belgium) and now a royal baby on the way. In the UK, all this publicity is working wonders for the royal family, as they ride a wave of popular support with only 17% of respondents telling pollsters that they favour a republic. The Dutch monarchy is equally popular among the great unwashed, with 78% of people saying they still back the royals.

Even France, that bastion of republicanism, has discreetly installed a monarch as its Head of State. Technically, the French President automatically takes the title of Co-Prince of Andorra, making François Hollande the only monarch in the world to be directly elected.

Not all European monarchs enjoy the adoration of their subjects, however. Fully 60% of Swedes think that King Carl XVI Gustaf has overstayed his welcome and should abdicate (though 70% still want to keep the institution of the Swedish monarchy) whilst, after a series of damaging public scandals, only 36.8% of Spaniards still support their monarchy.

So, is it time that Europe’s monarchies were abolished? Royalists might argue that monarchies bring political stability, respect for tradition and a sense of national pride, along with hordes of tourists (not to mention a roaring trade for tabloid journalists). Republicans, meanwhile, might feel that hereditary monarchy is an anachronism in a democratic society, particularly as they are often heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Nina J. G.

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!



269 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think? Do unelected monarchs still have a place in modern democracies? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we'll take your comments to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

    • avatar
      john

      be realistic ernest, they are never going to abolish hedge funds

    • avatar
      ahmad

      agree with Ernest

    • avatar
      Alex

      Abolish the hedge funds and also abolish the monarchies, they’re a useless waste which insults human intelligence in 2016!

    • avatar
      Beauty

      Waste of money

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Perhaps that is true of Latin nations – which have [unfortunately] a tendency to be politically unstable/corrupt.

      Northern European including the Commonwealth are more stable and less corrupt – see transparency international for proof.

      Republics do NOT work if you can BUY the head-of-state role – see France, Italy, Spain and Portugal for examples!!

    • avatar
      alan B'stard MP (@alanBStardmp)

      an what is wrong with anachronistic. Why only European royals challenged here

  1. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar

    The short answer is NO – Western nations with continuous monarchies have proven themselves to be far more stable when compared to republics eg UK v France.

    Republics have a terrible [often overlooked weakness] viz. presidential elections – the President is foisted upon the ‘people’ by either MONEY [eg USA/France] or VIOLENCE [eg most developing nations].

    Your question should be “Should Presidential systems be replaced by monarchies perhaps?”

    • avatar
      James

      How about you learn a little more about comparative politics. Republics come in various forms, and arguably the best designed system is post war Germany.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      How about you comprehend and understand and ABSORB precisely what I wrote.
      Your vacuous and superfluous response embarrasses you.

    • avatar
      James

      Tarquin, I think not, after all you did just equate all presidential systems together. When as anyone knows presidential systems are wildly different. Your comment embarrasses you, try comprehending constitutional politics and stop EXCRETING textual diarrhea.

    • avatar
      louis Aponte

      So how is England more stable than France? England had, in the las 40 years, many episodes of political instability, war in northern Ireland, lost of almost all their colonies, terrorsm, economic colapse in the early 80s etc.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Louis Aponte
      ‘Stable’ regarding our HoS/constitutional monarchy. France has only had a democracy for the last c80 years [before that Hitler was effectively HoS] and the century before the Vichy regime, France also dallied with an emperor.

      We in the UK have had a stable constitutional monarchy for hundreds and hundreds of years – unlike France.

    • avatar
      Foxkilt

      Tarquin Farquhar, France also had 3 monarchies during that time. They didn’t prove more stable.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Foxkilt
      Clearly its not the type of HoS that has made France unstable when compared to say the UK.

      Perhaps the French people themselves might be a factor?

    • avatar
      eddie5960

      Tarquin, you are without a doubt an utter, utter buffoon of the highest order. Please go away and do not contaminate the intelligence and integrity of our nation with your drivel, unmitigated hogwash and pure nonsense any further!

    • avatar
      Alex

      Get out of here troll! Monarchies are a useless waste in any society in this planet, also abolish the hedge funds! And while were at it, lets abolish Tarquin Farquhar from posting here! Monarchies and hedge funds are an insult to human intelligence in 2016, we don’t need them they’re a waste!

  2. avatar
    Catalin Vasile

    There is no political stability in monarchy versus republic! The corruption of the politicians and the cowardice of the people make the difference!

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Please READ a book before putting finger to keyboard!

      CORRUPTION is easier when your head of state can be BOUGHT as is significantly the case for many republics.

    • avatar
      Bleach1443

      Tarquin Farquhar they are figure heads they have no real power witch means the politicians can still be

    • avatar
      Bleach1443

      Tarquin Farquhar they are figure heads they have no real power witch means the politicians can still be bought

    • avatar
      Friso

      The Dutch know how corrupt ceremonial royals can be. The late prince Bernhard was corrupt most of his life in scandals of which the Lookheed scandal is the biggest besides having been a Nazi party member etc, etc.

    • avatar
      James

      Abolish yourself.

    • avatar
      Friso

      More royals would mean more lies, more fairy tales, more cheating, more fooling of people. That is a world I reject any time anywhere!

  3. avatar
    Jude De Froissard

    they are not an anachronism…
    in fact…democracy works better there..in europe…and they are an element of stability .

  4. avatar
    James

    The hereditary principle is both unhealthy and illegitimate. If we truly espouse to be social democracies with fluid meritocratic societies, then monarchies should be abandoned. That it attracts tourists is not a valid argument for a governance system that perpetuates feudal entrenched privileges for the few.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @James
      So you want to abolish a system that favours a mere score of people BUT that has made the UK [for instance] the stablest country for the last 1000 years.

      I find your FUNDAMENTALISM disgusting!!

  5. avatar
    Osia Katsidou

    Yes, because conferring political power on the basis of privilege is an embarrassment for every enlightened society!

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Yes, of course! Instead why not confer power on those [greedy Bs] that amass the most money-cum-political-influence? Erm, perhaps monarchies are not so bad after all?

  6. avatar
    Ricardo Lemos

    Naturally, to base the existence of a head of state if almost powerless, is quite a waste of money. The model of constitutional monarchy is an in-between republic, since it recognizes the merits of an elected government, but persists in feeding an institution that is respected by its history and “charm” but has no practical function towards the welfare of the country. Therefore, Republic will, naturally, pave its way until the last monarchies vanish, which will tend to speed up as many economies shrink. Of course tribal nobility, honorary but costless to the state, as it exists in many countries with a strong tribal tradition do not fit in this opinion: they cost nothing to the state but help keeping the cohesion of the countries.

    • avatar
      James

      That is because you lack grey matter.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      James – I believe that my response was an entirely suitable riposte to your initial trivial and embarrassing [to YOU] comment.

      Furthermore, your second comment directed at me further embarrases you. Instead of ‘textual diarrhea’ why not use the single simple word ‘logorrhea’!!

      QED – You have confirmed to me that you are nought but a flibbertigibbet. My work here, is done!

    • avatar
      James

      Tarquin, I think you better run back under your bridge, troll.

      That and most of you arguments are pretty poorly put together.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      James
      Look at the following G8 democratic states:

      USA – The HoS was BOUGHT
      FRANCE – The HoS [the previous if not the current] is tainted by illegal monies
      ITALY- The HoS is a convicted criminal AND is tainted by illegal monies
      RUSSIA – The HoS was BOUGHT AND is a THUG
      GERMANY – The previous HoS had to resign due to financial irregularities

      Look at the following G8 Constitutional Monarchies:
      UK – THE QUEEN
      Canada – THE QUEEN
      Japan – THE EMPEROR

      Furthermore, a recent UN report stated that 7 of the top 10 countries on Earth were CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES.

      Your feeble/febrile/juvenile/irrational/illogical argument has been well and truly DESTROYED – END OF!

  7. avatar
    Pedro Oliveira

    1. If the hole idea of the EU is to have a democracy, any other regime, if voted by the people, must never be abolished or denied. However, it must be approved with a referendum (monarchy or ohter regime – yes or no) each 4 years like any other regular elections.
    2. If the idea is to use tax payers money to mantain a monarchy and at the same time have a regular Government like the UK or Spain, NO, it is out of the question. Monarchy as a cultural tradition, yes, but no tax payers money envolved.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      1…Logical – but perhaps 5 year periods rather than 4.
      2…The head of state of France costs 2-3 times more to fund than the head of state of the UK. GO FIGURE.

      PS: Despite the fact that it seems whatever political system is employed in Spain it always seems to end up CORRUPT. However, please note that the King of Spain did in the 1980s laudably prevent [yet another] dictatorship from taking root in Spain.

    • avatar
      Foxkilt

      Tarquin:
      Well yes. Our president actually has power, and thus a staff and advisors.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Foxkilt
      So that explains why the French HoS requires 150 cars!!

      LOL!!

  8. avatar
    Tatjana Pocrnic

    Who are we to decide?It is a question to be solved by individual countries who have monarchies and their citizents.

    • avatar
      John Aba-Magyar

      That is not so simple as it sounds because Canada is a monarchy, yet our monarch is a foreigner, a British person. Whoever inherit the British throne, inherit Canada. That is nothing short of mind bogling. Who would in their right mind choose a complete stranger, a citizen of a foreign country, to have as their head of state. Only Canada, Australia and Fiji do that. That is why I think that Europeans should abolish the monarchies, and in good time perhaps Canadians would wake up from their stupor saying”Well, if the British do not want them anymore, perhaps, we should discard them as well.” Otherwise, we will be a forgotten colony forever. Please abolish your outdated, fossilized institutions; the new world will thank you for it.. Let us have a more liberated kind of government with new blood.

  9. avatar
    Luis Filipe Freire

    No, though they may me symbolic or sometimes even metaphysical theyre necessary as a beacon of our culture…

  10. avatar
    Pedro Soares Martinho

    No!
    ?Se mandarem os Reis embora, ho-de tornar a cham-los?
    If you send the kings away, you will call them back (in the future)?
    Alexandre Herculano, Portuguese author

  11. avatar
    Ignasi Meda

    Monarchies??? Are we still playing chess with politics?? They are totally an “euro” anachronism.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Thats why the bulk of EU countries are either poor or corrupt or both – most of the stable and wealthy EU countries have a monarchy of some sort. FOOLISH MAN!!

  12. avatar
    Christian Weale

    Yes without a doubt! I find the whole notion of birth right quite abhorrent. An out dated structure that has served it’s time.

  13. avatar
    João Ferreira

    To live in a full and pure democracy, the power must be delegated to the people and not exclusively to a certain family. That way we are supporting elites, by still having and financing monarchies.

    • avatar
      JC

      I totally agree!!! Abolish all monarchies!!!

  14. avatar
    Jörg Flock

    But for a deeply divided country like Belgium for example the monarchy is a VERY IMPORTANT symbol of unity…….and the dutch royal family is kind of a trade mark……a door opener for dutch industry……..and you mustn’t forget….It’s the people who decided to hyperventilate because of this baby…..NOT the british royal family…… It’s a proof for bad work of a democratic government that people feel the need to ESCAPE into a fairy tail…… ;-)

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      TALE not TAIL! ;)

    • avatar
      Maarten Vervloet

      you do know that during the Dutch Golden Age the Dutch had a republic, if they didn’t need one then, than why now?

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      I would take a very close look at the crimes against humanity commited by your beloved Leopold II in “The Belgian Congo”, namely 10 million murdered natives, most in excruciating pain. One only must look at a history book to see the photos from the “Heart of Darkness”. A symbol of unity based on a foundation of countless African bones, so the pathetic monarch of your trifling country could hold his head high among his peers. I demand a posthumos war crimes tribunal.

  15. avatar
    Joao Cardim Carrisso

    I beleive that is very healthy to have someone with non partys political vew or concenpt of organisation of country. They are treined and educated for that. On the other hand is very hard to ask somebody to do that, because its his duty, even when he is not agree with that.

  16. avatar
    Lawrence Kerknawi

    European monarchies still have a purpose in those modern times. They are not only an important symbol for their country abroad. They also have a political use without damaging the democratic society. When politicians find themselves in a political crisis with no light at the end of the tunnel, the apolitical monarch can intervene as a mediator and bring certain people together in order to put an end to the crisis. Let us not forget that a republic isn’t necessarily cheaper than a monarchy

    You could see the monarchy as a candle. It’s charming but it has not an important purpose in this modern day age were we have electricity. But when electricity is out, it can be very useful.

    • avatar
      Friso

      And keeping all the decadency that comes along with them? Decadency is something we should not strive for, but royals proclaim decadency, fooling others and secrecy.

  17. avatar
    Steve Patriarca

    I think if you look at what Presidents cost (eg Sarkozy cost France more than the Queen costs the UK) and the sheer mediocrity (and sometimes corruption) amongst the Presidents across Europe, then we ought to value our monarchies which give so much and make huge personal sacrifices for a life in the public eye. I do not think Austrian political leadership ever really recovered from the end of the Habsburgs (look at their Presidents”!!!!!) the most stable and effective European democracies tend to be monarchies, Belgium indeed would not exist under any other system…any President would necessarily be elected by the majority Flemish community. Of course when UK had a strong and able Prime Minister (Thatcher or Blair for example) it is possible that influence in the world would have remained. But imagine A Head of State like Gordon brown or John Major? with a token minor Presidential figure alongside? Or a powerful elected president would destroy the 600 year old Parliamentary tradition – and there are two words to deal with that argument “President Blair”…

  18. avatar
    Mark

    Why should an entire family live on taxpayers’ money and legal privilege when all they have to show for it is “birthright”? The monarchies should be abolished entirely.

    • avatar
      JC

      I agree with Mark 1000 percent!!! Monarchies are stupid and should all be abolished!!!

  19. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    They are anachronistic and an absolute waste of money for the tax payers… They are paying just to have a state figure, while their roles are very limited.. Having said that, look at the state of most democracies.. Most of them have been transformed to oligarchies and an elitist political system… I guess Aristotle and other ancient Greek political philosophers were right from the beginning… Democracy is the rule of the mob, a deviation from the real rule of the people, that is called a polity… Perhaps that is why our leaders support democracy so badly, because it allows them to manipulate the mob… A true democracy is very hard to achieve.. But we got to keep trying…

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      FYI the French president costs 2-3 times as much to support as the British monarchy.

      For an erudite person such as yourself I am rather surprised that you vent your spleen without regard to rectitude.

      As a species we will NEVER reach the acme of ‘true democracy’ if we cannot support our assertions with cold-blooded objective facts.

      ‘True democracy’ is unachievable whilst one is ‘economical with the truth’.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Interesting article. But pray tell why on Earth would a country like the UK want to pool sovereignty and resources with [I’m sorry to say] a country like Greece?

      Greece was once the cradle of civilization but is now unfortunately, the epitome of political corruption, nepotism, theft and I’m disgusted to say racism!

  20. avatar
    Joseph Bartolo

    The British Royal Family is the Wealthiest family on Earth, having lands totaling 6 Billion 600 Million Acres, whilst the vast majority of the so called commonwealth struggles day in and day out such as India. It is due time that the s called commonwealth be disbanded and all countries become Republics, Countries belonging to the people where full dignity, prroperity and peace prevail <3

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Dream on! Why on Earth would the likes of Australia, Canada and New Zealand want to change to a republic wherein the head of state can be BOUGHT as is the case in France or Spain or the USA?

      If it ain’t broke DON’T fix it!!

      PS: Have you got any bona-fide legitimate statistics to support your vacuous assertion that the Royal family is the wealthiest on Earth please?

    • avatar
      James

      Who decides “it ain’t broke”? -he ruling established elite. If it “ain’t broke for them don’t fix it”, is a more accurate version of your statement Tarquin.

      You do not agree with the hereditary principle do you? Do you really think power flows in blood? Because that’s a pretty extreme view to have.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      James – yet again our perverted logic needs to be brought to task!

      Please explain why YOU believe that as you say “think power flows in blood?”.

      I AM WAITING…

    • avatar
      James

      You’ve been waiting a long time. It’s an English expression. Power flows/runs in/through blood is an analogy for hereditary monarchy where power is inherited rather than distributed in another manner, say an election.

      But continue, WAITING, troll.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MODERATORS FOR BREACHING OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. REPLIES MAY ALSO BE REMOVED.

  21. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    That’s for every European country where there still are monarchies to decide. A Croatian or a French for example doesn’t need to tell Spain what the **** we should or should not do. None of their business.

  22. avatar
    Natasa Jevtovic

    No. According to the French specialist of royalty, Stphane Bern, apparently they cost 5 times less than democracies and even bring the money to the state treasury.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      A French Royalist expert = OXYMORON or perhaps just MORON.

      Even French MPs have complained about the cost of the French HoS!!

  23. avatar
    Martin Bohle

    …as long as they are a good show, they may dwell on. Taking a purists view; they should go away.

  24. avatar
    Michaël Renders

    They should not! they are a symbole of the evolution of our democracy!They remain us our past and the long way we had to do to establish democracy and they act for they people! they help the country economicely and socialy!
    they are like “manneken pis” for Belgium or the eiffel tower for France etc etc. They are a hole part of our european culture. We have to preserve it!

  25. avatar
    Harlequin

    Yes they’re a big part of our culture. Also it helps to have the assurance that they can intervene if the government gets out of control and liquidate it.

    • avatar
      dave

      People will find other story tales. Get rid of these royal frauds.

  26. avatar
    Giannhs Panourhs

    I haven’t fully decided because there are many aspects to take into consideration (history, tourism etc). But if I had to choose, I would abolish the monarchies all over Europe as I always see them as a conservative institution, residue from the worst period of the European history (middle ages)…

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      And her facist regime!!!!!

  27. avatar
    Maarten Vervloet

    All monarchies should be abolished, since the concept is against article one in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

    “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” If that were to be the case, than everyone should have an equal chance of becoming head of state, a hereditary function does not provide this

    Furthermore, a democracy means: “The people rule” therefore the only true democracy is a republic (and for the record: North-Korea and other dictatorships are not a republic, what they call themselves is irrelevant)

    • avatar
      Charles Russell

      Maarten, I live in the USA. We are one of the largest republics (excluding China) on earth. Do you honestly think the cost of our presidency is less than the European monarchies? Your definition of what is a republic leaves out Iran, China, etc…We have senators and representatives in the USA who spend more to be elected to office than Queen Elizabeth’s entire civil list given annually. Also, we must provide security for former presidents including their children. I believe constitutional monarchies are often more free with citizens enjoying more rights. My husband and I MIGHT safely travel to Islamic monarchies such as Morocco and Jordan. Our relationship is a criminal offense in INDIA which is the largest republic officially in the world. Also, Indonesia. We have more rights in monarchist countries than republics. Look at Russia. Please study the economics of supporting a republican form of government. The Italian president receives more that The Queen. Look at the Dutch King. One tenth the expense. As for The Dutch Republic remember their was strong theocratic rule by Calvinists during this period. Most American presidents have been wealthy by birth. Very few achieved this status. The ones who did were truly admirable. Neverthless, in republics usually a wealthy person will be elected. Remember what I mentioned about freedom. Would you leave to live in the republics of India, Indonesia, China, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Syria, etc…? Even Turkey which was once a bastion of defeating extremism is rapidly returning to pre Revolution values. A democracy means: “The people rule”. Monarchs reign. They have not ruled for over a century. This is meant kindly. I truly believe eliminating the monarchies would destabilise nations and give power to the wealthy. They would control government as well as the Monarch’s position to be above politics. The UK and Commonwealth countries are the most stable. Look at Japan a monarchist country. Then compare it to China. The precedent is there.

  28. avatar
    Dani Alexandrov

    Yes, just waste of money in the hardest economic situation and very high unemployment, and still rising.

  29. avatar
    Paul X

    The fact that it takes much more to keep the President of France over the Queen is very interesting, more so when you think how much income the Royal Family actually brings to the UK . You don’t often hear of tourists flocking to Paris just to try see Sarkozy do you?

  30. avatar
    catherine benning

    If the people of a state want their tax money used to house and billet those who are billionaires, these Monarchs, then, as others here have written, they should be asked through a referendum for their consent to it to continue. Remembering, of course, that thousands of Europeans today are going without food through no fault of their own.

    The British Monarchy, this year, received an increase in their annual stipend to the tune of several millions GB pounds, when two million of our people are currently fighting off starvation lining up at food banks. And, as I wrote above, these people, are billionaires in their own right, who pay no tax, or very little indeed. Prince Charles pays less tax than his footmen yet he receives something in the region of £20m per annum sterling plus, from his private investments hidden by the Duchy of Cornwall position and then he is gifted with the additional tax funded royal stipend on top of that as if he is needing a crust. This is vulgar to say the least. The Queen and others pay no tax at all.

    William and Kate had a baby boy yesterday and he is in line to take over as King of our country when his father, William, dies. Doesn’t matter what kind of guy he is or if he deserves such privilege it only matters he is said to be royal. Now there is the odd situation. He is hardly royal at all, he is the son of a working miners grandchild, Kate. William himself has very little royal blood. His mother, although born into a rich family of note from the aristocracy, was a commoner, and his Grandmother, our Queen was herself the child of a commoner. So here we are, the British tax payer now paying a huge fee for people who have no right to assume the title HRH. They are ordinary folk pushed on us without asking us if this is what we want or if they are worthy of their new found status. And they are clinging hysterically to the idea of this position by by pushing the media to float the idea of love for this tradition. It is obscene in a modern civilization.

    They are not worth the cost. It is a farce and yes, they should have the decency to fund themselves with their massive loot and get out of a business they have no right to be in. Today it is a fraud. And we cannot afford to put ourselves up for it.

    You can kick out an elected politician who is no good, a royal who is hated feels no sanction. You can do nothing to rid yourself of them. And to our embarrassment, we are stuck with a Cinderella and her ugly sister family whether we want it or not. For, the son of a cross bred noted individual feels we should fund his little bit of crumpet so he doesn’t have to shell out of his own pocket for it.

  31. avatar
    Anastasia Petraki

    YES! ABSOLUTELY YES! please really consider what monarchies are: it is the notion that by blood someone is superior than another human being. they dont believe in democracy & social mobility…it is still a form of racism which exists in democratic (?) EU

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Please, please, please by all means come into the 21st century!
      Your understanding of monarchy harks back to ye olden times! :)

      As a UK subject I KNOW that no member of the UK Royal family is superior to me – pure and simple!

      What I do respect is the fact that they represent my country and are a familiar familial link to all UK residents

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      What union is that Fuzzey. If you want to spend your money on hurry come ups with ideas above there station when they are already so wealthy the couldn’t spend what they have in a hundred lifetimes, well on you. Go to it.

      However, ike the referendum you want on Europe we want a referendum on whether we want to pay for this nonsense.

      And remember this, you twerp, it is Monarchy that keeps the idea of class privilege going. They are not up for the idea of meritocracy, breeding, they tell us, is all that matters. Except, of course, when it comes to their own breed and finding a mate. Merit, you see, means having something more to you than a horse under the crutch. And not one of ours have that, do they?

      Anyway, your sense of self and politics is akin to the cap doffing down and outs of Dickens time, you know your place guvnor, don’t you?

  32. avatar
    David Fuzzey

    And who exactly is going to abolish monarchies ? your union?…lol…try it and see what happens.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Again I ask a clown to answer his bull directly. What union is that? I am not affiliated to any union in the way you are to another faker, who likes to pretend he is more than a down and out coat tail hanger on, Nigel Farage.

      Once again, I am not a Labourite or some sort of bullock being led around by the ring in its nose akin to you. I can think with a clear head. You simply have no thinking ability at all. You are a paid up troll of a House of Lords conservative peer who needs those who know their place to keep him in the luxury he has become accustomed to.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2k1iRD2f-c

  33. avatar
    Nikolai Holmov

    Hmmm – An a-political ceremonial Head of State, such as HM Queen Elizabeth II of the UK – or a very political President Blair or Cameron as Head of State of the UK? – Simple answer to that – Long live the Queen!

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      What a narrow thinker you are. You can get rid of an unwanted and useless Prime minister, sooner or later. You can never get rid of a numb scull Monarch that costs the tax payer a fortune for no good reason.

      And how do you answer the question of how they are worth their position?

      And why do you want to retain the lunacy of class and position by birth rather than merit? And then, what as now in GB, no royal blood to speak of.

  34. avatar
    Paul X

    The Royal Family cost the UK around £40M per year
    They only get %15 of the income from their estates the remainder goes to the treasury est £200M
    Income to the UK generated by tourism due to the Royal Family est £500M

    So net £660M to the UK economy from the Royal Family…now someone do a analysis on what the EU costs the UK taxpayer then see which institution we should abolish

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      You, Paul X are full of it. The figures don’t stack up. The cost of the Monarch is far higher than they tell you. They are billionaires and do not need tax payers money.

      But more importantly they are unaccountable. This is not the middle ages. Monarchy does not belong in a democratic modern state. Our vote means nothing with this antiquated eternal dynastic ruler with its hangers on. To rule by birth for no other reason than blood line is ludicrous. Especially as the current blood line is all but dead.

      http://www.republic.org.uk/

      And

      http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/world/europe/uk-jubilee-republicans

    • avatar
      dave

      You’re so right Cathraine the slavishness and ignorance of the majority of people is infuriating. These so called “royal families” laugh at the fools who bow to them.

  35. avatar
    Maarten Vervloet

    First of all: A president is not automatically more expensive than a monarch (the German president for one is cheaper)

    Second: I do hope you are aware of the fact that 90% of all statements from eurosceptics against the EU are no more than fairy tales

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Maarten Vervloet
      There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Please provide a source for your highly contentious/dubious stat?

    • avatar
      JC

      Catherine and Dave and anyone else that agrees with you, thank you for being the voices of reason! I can’t believe in this day in age people are defending monarchies! This is not the middle ages! I hate the idea being born into a certain family makes you better than everyone else.Anyone who defends monarchies must be brain dead!

  36. avatar
    Paul X

    “I do hope you are aware of the fact that 90% of all statements from eurosceptics against the EU are no more than fairy tales”

    Well it’s the truthful 10% that people should be concerned about……

  37. avatar
    Maarten Vervloet

    http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2003/03/90232014/ this contains just a few examples of eurosceptics making up ridiculous things

    And for the record: I never said some of their claims aren’t true, the largest problem is the claims we actually hear about mostly aren’t

    I am not above admitting they sometimes do have a good point, the EU ain’t no perfect democracy; but it can be improved; for example by giving more powers to the regions like Catalunya, Corsica, Flandres etc. that in itself would most effectively diminish the power of the French-German axis and thereby improving the democracy

    Just one more comment (this time actually about the debate and not about the EU) : monarchies are not always stable; Belgium for example is a perfect example of a monarchy actually dividing the country (in the south 3/4 wants to keep the monarchy as it is, in the Flemish north 3/4 wants a protocol monarchy); and it’s not as if the monarchy managed to prevent Belgium to break the world record in longest government formations; although in fact Belgium still had 6 other governments the entire time and I’m still convinced we were better of without our current federal government

    even more: the only republic in the top 3 government formation is Iraq; the other country in the top 3 is the Netherlands, also a monarchy

    • avatar
      John Davison

      The EU is moving towards ever closer centralised authority. It cannot be improved. No-one with a social conscience who has actually examined what the EC have planned for us would ever vote Remain.

  38. avatar
    Paul X

    Likewise so are you Catherine
    The figures I quote are freely available on the internet and various sources give similar numbers, face facts, the Royal family are beneficial to this country .You on the other hand post links to two rampant pro-republican propaganda sites full of hype
    A point to dispute with them…the Royal family have no real “power” much of what they do is purely symbolic but it is part of British tradition and history going back hundreds of years.
    Ok, so lets abolish them, sell off their palaces to be turned into blocks of flats, sell off their land to be turned into chav filled social housing estates, while your at it close down all the museums and other stately homes, lets eradicate all trace of British history and tradition and become a faceless republic, your welcome to it but hopefully I wont still be around if it happens

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      You made me LOL, chavs on council estates infesting the palace? That would be a step up in some cases. Are you serious? You really don’t believe today’s royals have anything other than chav mentalities do you. Zara Phillips and the Tindall creature, how low do you want to go? Good lord how much lower is there? Kate Middleton and her ugly sister with Uncle Gary the Bang Bang king, along with the strange looking parents selling plastic cups on the net. Harry with his pants down in Las Vegas and the two misfits Eugene and Beatrice. Sophie Wessex selling entry to royal deals and her Prince of its a knockout fame.

      Oh, Pleeeeese, do leave off. You, dear boy, are not playing with a full deck. This is what you want to pay millions for in taxes and for what reason pray? There is no royal blood left. This entire package should be opened for an immediate referendum. Just as you are calling so ardently for on Europe.

      However, it’s not just today is it. Princess Margaret and the gangster brigade, as well as all the shady lovers.

      And as the state sells off many other sites to Saudi Kings and American billionaires, all at cut down killer rates, why should the Palaces worry you. Have you seen Belgravia lately? And do you know what how much is her ‘private property’ as opposed to the property of us all called the Crown State. Own most of Manhattan
      on a quick look.

      So worried about a republican view, here it is in detail. Except of course that which is hidden from view.

      http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/royal-family-uk-taxpayers/

      And another point of view.

      http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      I hope you won’t be around next week

  39. avatar
    Marcel

    The idea that monarchy creates tourism is ludicrous at best. How do monarchists explain tourism in Paris, Berlin or New York?

    The only relevant factor is that monarchy equals discrimination. Differentiating between nationals based on birth is discrimination, plain and simple.

    And popularity is not synonymous with legitimacy.

    Lets not forget that monarchs started World War 1 and German monarchists conspired to overthrow the Weimar Republic, only for their appointed destructor (Hitler) not yielding to one of the Kaisers sons as they had planned.

    I see no reason why I should be denied an equal chance to be head of state simply because I was born into the “wrong” family.

    This us discrimination therefore supporting monarchy is supporting discrimination.

    You cannot be for monarchy and against discrimination at the same time just as you cannot be for the EU and for democracy at the same time.

    The German model is best.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      People visit capital cities for different reasons, just ask any of the tens of thousands of tourists that visit Buckingham Palace if it is one of the reasons they come to London and they will say yes. Americans love our Royal family and spend a lot of money in this country because of it, that is a fact so get over it. Ask any tourists in Paris if they are there because of President Hollande and I doubt you get many saying yes
      And some people being born into a priviliged family is a fact of life, it has gone on for centuries and will continue to go on for centuries more, only jealous socialists could claim it is discrimination and no doubt dream of some utopia where everyone is as poor and miserable as each other

  40. avatar
    Marcel

    Paul X, what you say is propaganda. Not one tourist would stop coming if the system of discrimination known as monarchy was abolished.

  41. avatar
    Marcel

    However I also do not want the undemocratic Eurosoviet Union and its Politburo.

  42. avatar
    John Smith

    Yes definitely along with the Middle Eastern kingdoms.

  43. avatar
    JJ

    Happily take a parliamentary monarchy over a republic! Seems to work very well around the world. Failing that, the German system of having an appointed president seems nice.
    Although I like the American system, an elected president that is actively involve in politics (with a large amount of power) can be awfully divisive.

  44. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar

    @Catherine Benning
    You are a FUNDAMENTALIST dear human! With heavy emphasis on the mental!

    BTW, methinks http://www.republic.co.uk might perchance be less than objective in their assessment of UK monarch-related costs – hardly a fair and balanced perspective.

    Furthermore, your CNN article highlights how much SUPER-SUPER-TAX the Royal family pays to the treasury every year, paying-in hecto-millions of pounds more than they receive – you have managed to disprove your own assertion – I THANK YOU, MY WORK HERE IS DONE – QED.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Clearly you have not been able to follow the gist of the post.

      I raised reality in a democratic way. Both sides of the coin. If you want to believe they pay more tax than they get, well go ahead. Its simpletons like you they rely on. otherwise they would have been out on their ear a very long time ago.

      But, what you should be asking is, what do they do for you. Make a pretty pageant picture?

  45. avatar
    Kyle Smith

    No, quite plainly Monarchies provide flavour to Europe. Places like the United Kingdom do not have the long history of a Revolutionary Republic like France, and so can’t use republicanism as a cultural tool. What they can use is a powerless entity that has existed for 1000 years to instill a sense of tradition. Newborn republics nowadays tend to be very plain and puritan in nature, apart from their extensive corruption.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      France (200 years old) is a mere JUNIOR nation when compared to the England (1000 years old).

      France is a great nation but there are several SUPERIOR nations in the EU!

  46. avatar
    Streetwalker

    No of course we should not abolish the monarchies , what do you want , WAR ?

  47. avatar
    C3lv1c3

    Yes, abolish them. Monarchy is a thing of the past, even if it’s not 100% monarchy anymore, I think the people have the right to live in a direct democratic state. Monarchs should leave politics forever, they maybe can stay for tourist attractions only.

  48. avatar
    Aim

    Yes. I do believe that the Monarchy needs to be abolished. After King Charles the 1st in 1649, England had no Monarchy for 11 years. We should never have restored it in 1660!! We live in a democracy now. Are we not being slightly hypocritical by calling ourselves a democratic country and then having an unelected Queen still as our Monarch?!! Also why should one family have the Devine right to power and superiority?Sorry but I believe in equality. Also why should my tax money pay for the Royal family??? The Monarchy should be overthrown and all the palaces should be made into museums and that in itself would make money.

    • avatar
      Carole Heath

      I completely agree Aim. The English civil war where thousands died fighting for a fairer society and a republic regarding Cromwell’s parliamentarian cause. The worst thing was restoring the Monarchy. When the crisis in 1937 came about with Edward V111 and the fact he wanted to marry a divorced woman and he gave up the throne. The Monarchy should have been disbanded. How can we ever be a true democracy as you say when we cannot elect our head of state and we have no written constitution either. The Monarchy I think has no place in modern society it smacks of elitism. Most of the Monarchy’s in Europe have gone and If they do still flourish I don’t think the tax payers have to pay for their up-keep.

  49. avatar
    Debby Teusink

    Monarchs represent the whole of the nation, not one political ideology. The monarch is above the parties, not a member of one or the other. I would prupose a monarch for Europe, a constitutional Caesar Augustus. :-)

  50. avatar
    Nayan

    Modern Democracy should not provide special privileges to certain family. they are very expensive and not creative for new ideas and business. so they should be abolished.

  51. avatar
    Aldo

    I fully agree whit Nayan, they are too expensive and unnecessary.

  52. avatar
    John Davison

    Constitutional monarchies – at least ours in the UK – add colour, tourist revenue, interest and a sense of national cohesion not based on party politics. I would vastly trim down the EU and its bureaucracies and leave the royals in place.

  53. avatar
    Priyanka

    The money spent on them could be well spent in feeding and supporting humanitarian causes rather than funding an unsustainable lifestyle of a handful of people.

  54. avatar
    Guillem Trabuc

    I think any country that calls themselves democratic should abolish their monarchy completely. I find it disgraceful that anyone is allowed to possess the wealth that the British monarchy has, especially considering they contribute nothing to society and don’t even work (and don’t say Harry’s in the army because soldiers don’t earn a fraction of his wealth). They are nothing but a mere element of ‘popular culture’.
    Fuck popular culture – power to the people and spread the wealth!

    • avatar
      John Davison

      The wealth issue can be dealt with separately. Research has shown that the countries with the most stable and contented societies have constitutional monarchies rather than men in grey suits doing everything for political advantage. And the Queen, Princess Anne and one of two others work ten times harder than you or I ever have or will do.

    • avatar
      Guillem Trabuc

      The wealth of the Royal family compared to the working class majority implies that they are ‘better than us’ – this kind of evil should not be tolerated by the people.

  55. avatar
    Diogo Marques

    Lots of dumb statements in the comment sections “The monarch families cost alot of money!”, false, they cost the same or even less as Presidential leaders “Monarchies can never be true democracies!”, corrupt Republics are the ones that can never be true democracies, just look at the sorry state my own country, Portugal, is in, look at Greece and Italy, where crooks and criminals are elected every 4 years “Monarchs bring tourism!” another dumb statement, this time coming from the monarchists themselves, Versailles attracts alot of tourists and there’s no Bourbon, Orleanist or Bonapartist on the throne. Final notes, if the people of the constitutional monarchies are in favor of maintaining them the EU has no authority to say otherwise and a king is no better than me just because he was born into it, that would be like saying a president is better than me because he was elected into it.

    • avatar
      Mbruno

      I guess the point, Diogo, is not that the “king is better than you”, but rather that you and I for that matter could never be kings unless we met the criteria to be in the line of succession and happened to be the first person in the aforementioned line at the moment of the demise of the crown. That means descending from a certain person or family, being born before my siblings, and sometimes even being a member of a certain church or religion, or being of a certain gender (yes, religious tests and gender preferences in difference degrees still apply to the line of succession in many European monarchies !).

      By contrast, in a republic, anyone who qualifies as a voter could in theory stand for (or, as they say in the US, “run for”) the office of Head of State (president), although it is very unlikely that you and I, or any other ordinary citizen who wishes to be president would ever secure a nomination, much less be elected.

      As I indicated below, I actually think constitutional monarchy is better suited to a parliamentary system of government than a republic and, therefore, should be actually the natural choice for European countries. However, I cannot deny that hereditary succession to the office of Head of State violates the principles of equality and meritocracy.

  56. avatar
    Guillem Trabuc

    Not at all!
    A least those ‘men in grey suits’ are elected to run the country, rather than the power-hungry, filthy rich imperialist monarchies of not just Britain, but all over the world who demand respect on the basis of their phony ‘sacred blood line’. Look at the most successful economical powers over the past century – USSR, USA, France, Germany, India, Brazil, modern Russia and, since the departure of the imperialists, China have all become powerful while living under a monarchy-free state.
    Think about it – all that money that will be saved, imagine what Britain could do with that money. They could invest more in communities, into creating jobs, into education, health service, transport, food, protection of the environment, the battle against recession, better living standards for the poor, more income support for the elderly and disabled, regulating and preventing business monopolies – all of which are humanitarian and are (should be) more important than the glorified, overrated and tax consuming Royals that don’t deserve the wealth they have at their disposal – nobody does!

    • avatar
      John

      Interestingly Guillem, the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman – not a conservative – researched our Royals and interviewed the Queen for a TV series. It is quite clear that he went into it to do a hatchet job on her and emerged full of respect for her.

  57. avatar
    John

    Have you read “the great European Rip-Off”? It was quite an eye-opener to me about our suited friends. Your comments seem to me eminently applicable to absolute monarchies, but not, I think, to constitutional ones. And I agree about wealth, but that is not the point we were debating.

  58. avatar
    Bleach1443

    Idk about Europen ones I mean the tourist argument in my mind kinda only applys to the UK because they seem to be the only ones people are intrested in. As for Canada and Astralia and the others it’s kinda strange that there monarchy’s to a foreign country still. Idk just my opinion

  59. avatar
    Hary

    I don’t think a monarchy is more despicable than a democracy. The idea that I have the right to choose who ‘ll be allowed to represent the opinion of my neighbours or that others have the right to decide (with equal saying) who will represent me is just as harmful to my liberty than a monarchy.
    A monarchy is less prone to fall into a dictatorship of the majority and is more stable. In a multi-party system a representative governement is nothing more than a compromising status quo machine, it doesn’t matter if the ‘ruler’ is a president or a king. So therefore pick the cheaper option and that’s the monarchy.

  60. avatar
    mj park

    Well, i personally think that it shouldn’t be abolished because the amount of publicity it brings to the UK is huge. its also whats left of history. asking for it to be abolished is like asking China to break down their great wall of china or asking Egypt to bring down their pyramids. it’s ridiculous.

  61. avatar
    Mbruno

    Historically, the parliamentary system of government evolved within the framework of constitutional monarchy, first in the UK and then, later, in other European countries (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.). It was only when some former European monarchies like France, Germany, Italy or Portugal became republics that the parliamentary system was adapted to function with an elected president, even though, as originally conceived, it works much better with a permanent and unelected monarch.

    Personally, the hereditary principle also bothers me by turning the office of Head of State (HoS) into a monopoly of some descendants of a particular family, sometimes subject also to religious tests, gender preference or marriage consent. However, if European countries want to keep the parliamentary system, with a HoS that lacks political responsibility for his acts and fulfills the role of ceremonial representation of the nation in a strictly apolitical and non-partisan fashion, a king is a much better alternative than a president.

  62. avatar
    dave

    The idea of bowing to a ruling “royal family” is absolutely pathetic. A lot of you people need to get up off of your knees. Royal families have done terrible things through out history and are only in check now because of violent wars taking wrestling absolute power away from them. So called “royal families” is not a tradition any real man would want to honour. In fact it should make his blood boil.

  63. avatar
    Justin

    Yes, not only europe, but also the whole world. Because monarchy is too very old now….

  64. avatar
    MonarchistNL

    NOOO NEVER!!! Republics are old to, even the acient romans had a republic so why may i ask are they not outdated? If it where up to me, all Monarchies would be restored to there rightfull place in charge of Europe!

    ps. even in a true democracy we would not be equel, chosen or not we will always have an Elite due to money ,birth or both, its in our nature to have leaders, and be honest the biggest flaw in democracy, are the people that vote..

  65. avatar
    Matthew Patrick Lachowicz

    I would rather see country ruled by the strong and righteous king than bunch of corrupted politicians who spit on our culture, undermine our values and are not really different from whores or communists who are responsible for the greatest genocide and misery that Europe had ever seen.

  66. avatar
    Carole Heath

    I don’t think the monarchy is a unfair system in a democratic country. Tony Benn was correct when he said do we really have a democracy in the UK. We have no written constitution maybe that is because we have a constitutional monarchy. We can’t elect our head of state and church and state are joined thanks to Henry V111 who made himself top dog in both systems because he did not want to be dictated to by Rome not just because the Pope would not allow him to divorce Katherine of Aragon.The politicians are always going on about a fairer society and class struggles and injustice within our society but the ruling classes still hold the power and wealth even today in this country. I think a republic is a fairer system at least if we don’t like the head of state who are elected at least we can vote them out. People say a Republic is open to corruption no system is going to be without its faults people power is what democracy is supposed to be about for the people by the people so abolish the monarchy that’s what I say.

    • avatar
      John Davison

      Dear Carole

      Judging from the rest of your email, I think you meant “I think the monarchy is an unfair system in a democratic country”. Most of the power and wealth in the UK is held by businessmen today, not by the old aristocracy (only a couple of them get in the billionaires’ list). I support a constitutional monarchy, because the Queen (who works bloody hard for a woman in her eighties) stands apart from politics, and gives the nation a sense of cohesion, tradition and identity. John

  67. avatar
    Carlos Echaide Gorriz

    It should depend just on what people think in each country. The spanish monarchy is just our problem (spanish people). It’s fair to have the choice to choose if we want to keep the monarchy or change to a republican country

  68. avatar
    Cla Carr

    Bullshit, we cannot choose what economy we want and we may be called to choose if we want Monarchy? Let’s make a referendum if we want unvoted European Commission instead!!!

  69. avatar
    Thomas Nemo

    No way. Monarchies are the ideal way of showing the populace that our society favors archaic power structures. It wouldn’t be fair to suggest that democracies would take themselves serious, and be more than a smoke screen to allow for the sustenance of the exploitative economic system, in favor of the Owner’s Caste and their policies of owning your house, your job and your ass.

  70. avatar
    Thomas Nemo

    Any suggestion of authority resembling something vaguely fair would constitute the immediate dissolution of society.

  71. avatar
    Jaime Martins

    Todos fomos paridos e viemos ao Mundo SEM NADA, e sempre assim foi desde o incio da humanidade, a terra era de ningum em particular e de TODOS ao mesmo tempo. Como podem uns poucos apelidarem-se de nobres se somos todos feitos do mesmo e quem se apropriou do que pertence a TODOS?
    TUDO O QUE EXISTE NO MUNDO PERTENCE A TODOS.

  72. avatar
    Karel Van Isacker

    Of course. These are no longer the middle ages where royal blue blood “existed”. This is teh most extreme case of how people are all equal, except some that are more equal than others, have lots of wealth, pay limited to no taxes and are spending their time appearing in gossip magazines.

  73. avatar
    Sophia-Maria Prentou

    What kind of question is that? The European countries should do what their people want. If their people want parliamentary democracy it’s ok. If they want monarchy, again it’s ok! That question reminds me of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were supposed to “choose” democracy. But if one is forced to ‘choose” democracy, is that democratic enough? I truly belive that these types of questions are better answered in the national level, and not in the international.

  74. avatar
    Jorge Qoqe

    …just anyone explainme how its possible to be a democracy but the Head of the State goes from father to son…

  75. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    Yes, it is time for each and every Europea country to seriously think about the role of their monarchies in their societies and whether they should continue supporting them or abolishing them.

  76. avatar
    Mark Calvert-Foster

    All states in the EU are democracies, monarchs preside by common consent. If the public in, say The Netherlands REALLY wanted to get rid, then they could. Every state has a different history and that should be celebrated and respected. European Union – EU- United by diversity.

  77. avatar
    Joel Dominic Rodrigues

    It is funny in a very sad way to see people letting their ill-informed/uninformed anti-EU sentiments cloud their thoughts about something so black & white. You _cannot_ be a democracy _and_ a monarchy, no matter what rationalisation you try to come up with. Monarchies are an anachronism, their time has come & gone. Enough is enough. You want privilege? Earn it. You need public assistance, apply for it like any other citizen or resident.

  78. avatar
    Wojciech Wielki

    The monarchy is tradition, the one who rules any democratic country now is the elected politician, i am not talking about divine right or that things, its just another political figure, yeah unelected,and? Do we choose the commanders of the police of the army? does italy choose the president of the repunlic? Does the people choose the capitani regenti of san marino? Plus, in a democracy every idiot can get into politics as that, in a totalitarian system, if you have the guts and experience you can become what you want.Also in a monarchy.

  79. avatar
    Julia Walker

    Absolutely yes! how can you live with such austerity measures on one hand and still have royalty….its disgusting

  80. avatar
    Jeffrey van Dooren

    I personally find the monarchy in my country a money-spending doll show, but the majority likes it so I have to except that fact that this guy is my ‘king’. A referendum wouldl be great but i guerentee you that its a waste of time in most countries

  81. avatar
    Herta Manenti

    Visto il farsi strada di una monarchia dittatoriale finanziaria e nenache con dei valori tradizionali, forse sarebbe il caso di mantenere la vecchia nobilt’ che quantomeno qualcosa di solido lo trattiene in se

  82. avatar
    Kris Babůrek

    Who’s asking? Maybe puppet presidents of foreign interests or those voted into position by 15% of voters?

  83. avatar
    Carmen M

    Well, to begin with, I must say I’m not totally sure about my beliefs right now. Having said that, I do want to emphasise that the abolition (or not) of the Monarchy, is not an overnight decision. I do think that PEOPLE should come to that conclusion. It is neither politician, nor journalists nor the European Union the ones to take that crucial step. I love the EU, but it does not have any, either political or legislative power when it comes to such judgement, that goes without saying.
    So, whether people decide to continue to have a Monarchy or to take the Republican side, I do believe that they should be invited to choose. Something, I believe positive for both, Monarchists and Republican. For several reasons, including:
    1. Transparency. An exercise of what most people are growing to demand: transparency, transparency.
    2. Democracy: In democratic states, it’s the majority the ones who take that kind of resolution.
    3. And the last but not the least: Reinforcement. Institutions could see their popularity and legitimisation vastly increased if people wanted to give them their support. Something, from my humble point of view, easily achieved, by letting people give their viewpoint.

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      Good idea and you should get your kids jobs as servants or bottom wipers in the new improved aristocracy. What a foolish statement!

  84. avatar
    Riona Wibel

    THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MODERATORS FOR BREACHING OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. REPLIES MAY ALSO BE REMOVED.

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      Sorry love, you cannot call people dumbs, it’s not a word. You could have said “you are dumb” I think that what happened to the Tzar of Russia and his family was wholely justified if not absolutely necessary.

  85. avatar
    Nuno Ribeiro Palha

    What is the importance of the opinion of other europeans on the monarchies of other countries not theirs? NONE ! There are much more important discussions to have on a European level than the abdication of the Spanish king that only regards Spanish ! The good thing about the EU is to discuss European problems on an European level to find European solutions. The EU should not try to interfere in matters that are not its responsibility! It s the principle of subsidiarity …

  86. avatar
    JuhaQuim Piinto

    And way not if it’s time for European countries to have referendums on whether to keep their republics?

  87. avatar
    Nuno Oliveira

    They should keep their titles but not any public funding unless they convert their culturally relevant estate to fully public organizations open to everyone. Even with that option they should pay taxes and social security like other people in their economic stratus.

  88. avatar
    Carlos Agorreta Zafra

    yes. is preferable to be a capitalist slave than a feudal slave. At least, with the correct policies, you can climb in the social lift with meritocracy.

  89. avatar
    Tamás Heizler

    By the way – still not my business, but – it would be kinda ironic after having the Spanish constitution been changed (from Kingdom to Republic) by referendum and then saying to the Catalonians that “No, no, independence referendum is impossible because secession is against the constitution”. Just my opinion.

  90. avatar
    Anastasis Chasiotis

    no and why should it if the population of a country loves its monarchs then no and ive read above that we are no longer in the middle ages to have monarchy well democracy was founded in ancient ages way before monarchy so yeah…..

  91. avatar
    Rueben

    The price we pay for hereditary, non-democratically elected monarchs is too high. Monarchies are something of a bygone era. Long Live the Republic

    • avatar
      Carole Heath

      I quite agree Rueben with your comment. People power is what democracy is about an un-elected head of state is not democratic.

  92. avatar
    Rueben

    The price we pay for hereditary, non-democratically elected monarchs is too high. Monarchies are something of a bygone era. Long Live the Republic.

  93. avatar
    Inés Sánchez

    The Spanish monarchy is not a useless institution.
    1. They do help with the diplomatic relations, especially with Arab countries and countries with other monarchies. They also deal with other issues such as helping Spanish companies to enter other countries’ economies.
    2. Spanish political leaders (presidents and ministers) don’t usually speak almost any other language aside from Spanish, so they have to work with translators. This is a huge barrier towards maintaining diplomatic relations and informal relations with other states. It is true that translators help, but not always.
    3. The politicians in Spain have very little, or no credibility so voting for a head of state would be a very complicated as firstly, democracy ideals have to be restored among the population.
    4. The Spanish monarchy is the cheapest of all Europe and in some countries, a republic model ended up being more expensive for the population.

    BUT, even with all this, people SHOULD have the right to decide the state model they want to live under.

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      The Spanish monarchy was voted out of existence in 1931 when they Spanish electorate voted for a republic, as you might know. Your family could probably regale you with stories of how they heroically stamped down those filthy communist commoners. Franco was a fascist dictator who groomed Juan Carlos to be his successor. Just because he chose to suppport a limited democracy is nothing to be applauded. His intervention in a questionable coup d’ etat in 1981 was simply for his own survival. He is a degenerate who doesn’t deserve to sit at the same tables as elected leaders. You are sorely deluded as are the majority of people on this thread. It’s depressing.

  94. avatar
    Pedro Redondeiro

    I do not think they should be banned unless people want to! However i do think it should go referendum in the countries that still have monarquies! The problem is not the wxistence of royal families, but instead the expenses they represent in the countries tight budget! ;)

  95. avatar
    Gio Dimitriadis

    There are more serious problems that need to be solved right now. Let’s have some priorities in the issues that need to be changed.

  96. avatar
    Louis Chaidron

    Well that’s definitely not the business of the EU to ask this question, even on an unformal place like here.

  97. avatar
    Liz Apap

    Monarchies form part of your history and culture; so how can you wipe out your history!

    • avatar
      Miranda Forbes

      History is not just about Monarchy’s social history of the people is just as important I think. If the British Monarchy went and we had a Republic that does not mean our history and culture would go I don’t think.

  98. avatar
    George Danieldsg

    ?n outaded relic of the past.Yet market vultures managed to use it for their interests so it will survive.

  99. avatar
    Antoine Che

    Because people in power should not write the rules defining their own power
    ?We want a democratic Constitutional Assembly, therefore randomly drawn.?

    It is the explicit proposal which should rally the millions of citizens whose *political impotency is programmed in the constitution*.

    By reading the 6 chapters of this website, you will understand that if you want to change anything in the mechanisms of our current society, you will have to make this message your one and only claim: from its application the rest will follow. To understand the strength of this message, please take a few minutes to read through the six chapters of the website, they are very short.

    http://www.le-message.org/?lang=en

  100. avatar
    Giorgio Clarotti

    Does Europe still include England? I see no comment from the Isles, they still have royalty or has Mr Farage been made King too ?

  101. avatar
    Nikos Abramidis

    I am still wondering why there peopel supporting the monarchies. In Greece we sent oud Danish King back home about fourty years ago and the country had become much more stable than it used to be, as our king was always intervening in politiacl afairs. You see a Monarch might be a part of a nation’s history but is still a waste of money. Most of Europeans Monarchs have no reall political people and they only represent a facotr of national unity, but I dare allof those supporting their stay because to think.If a nation need one person to be unitied should this mean thatthere are deeper problems?

    Th role of a Monarch can be easily be easily replaces bu the Presedent of the Republic, which obivously cots less money that a whole royal family.
    Apart from the the argument that the Grance presedent for example costs more money that the UK Monarch is invalid, as he is not equally with the Queen. He is both the head of state and the head of the Goverment, and he has an important role.
    So to sum up there is no reall argument in favoure of manrchies. When they had real politica powerthey were always intervening in political afairs (history says it), and no they they have no sush a role there getting fed with people’s money. Their role in unified the nation is still very weak, as they can easily be replaces by other institutions.

  102. avatar
    malc

    Abolish, for numerous reasons the most important being that they are a symbol that we accept social inequality, saying people are special from birth is tantamount to saying others are lesser. secondly hereditary monarchies fly in the face of democracy (not that Carlos was first in line anyway)
    Thirdly they are a divisive influence on government, Carlos was not the saviour of democracy he is made out to be he was groomed by Franco at the military academy of Toledo that Franco set up, The UK monarchy is very pro Conservative and there are attempts to hide thier influence on government via the courts at this very moment.
    Fourth they are expensive, forget the lies about how they bring in money, this has never been proven france has larger tourism than UK the so called lucrative UK trade boost is mostly via corrupt middle eastern buseness.Meanwhile they are able to appropriate financial benefits without public knowledge, Charles gets a percentage of all ofshore winfarm tax revenue, hardly a historic right.
    Fith thier subtle dodgey powers, in the UK we have to gain royal assent if it affects royal interest which may mean that bills are quashed before the public even here about them because for instance it affects Charles buseness monopolies in Cornwall. there is also the royal perogative wherby things can be given royal assent without parliament involvement, which was used to keep US troops in Diego Garcia even though thier lease is up and thier presence is considered an act of genocide by the UN. We in the UK are not afforded a debate let alone a referendum as the media trots out a bland fairy tale and never explains what a republic actually means.
    By if we are talking tradition, the Wittan a peoples council used to chose our King long before William `the bastard’ ilegaly invaded and enforced serfdom (slavery) on britain leading to years of inter family warfare not a tradition to be proud of really, there was an attempt at a genuine republic after Cromwell died but the Military (General Monk) betrayed Parliament and brought in the monarchy much like Franco did, Kings and queens have been dropped and killed off for thier religion, sex, (possibly sexuality) and for who they chose to marry and the rullse of inheritance keep changing so so if we are talking tradition lets be clear there isnt ONE the history also includes republics and kings chosen and discarded by the people .

  103. avatar
    José Rodrigues

    The Europe is the old and most beautiful continent due in biggest part to his history. The monarchy represents part of this history and represents the people and a country so in my opinion I would say no. On other hand if we think in a capitalist way the monarchy costs a lot of money to the citizens (UK and Spain are good examples) specially in time of a big economic crisis. I vote for history.

  104. avatar
    David Fernandes Coelho

    Yes with the amount of taxes we have to pay to support these kings and queens I believe would be better invested in radicating hunger.

  105. avatar
    Rita Cortis Coleiro

    What for? They`re a Line from a very Old Historical past … found Mostly in Europe !.. They were there Long before Hitler, Mussolini and The EU ever existed… and so Stay they shall !… Try It and EU will disintegrate in no time at all !

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      I wonder who you vote for……….The PP party perhaps seeing as the CEDE is no longer an option. My arguement in answer to your weak point is; if they are a direct line from the kings of the past and they ( and you) cherish that bloodline, then they should apologise to every country invaded in their name, to every family destroyed, to every woman raped, or wronged, or marginalised or ostrisized. They should get down on thier hands and knees in Valle de los Caídos and beg for forgiveness for colluding with Fascist killers in the case of Spain. Queen Elisabeth 2 should publically apologise for what her family has done to Ireland, what little her great-grandmother Vicoria did to halt a genocide brought on by her ministers economic policy. The Belgian royal household has the blood of at least 10 million Congolese on their conscience. I find this utterly despicable and disgusting. They should be stripped of all their titles and forced to pay retribution to the descendants of the peoples they so cruelly exploited. Your wish to be ruled is not mine and I would rather live in a gypsy camp than be considered to be of the same genus as you

  106. avatar
    Samuel Goddard

    I am personnaly, morally, and ethically offended by every royal institution and by extension every member of such a classist, supremist anachronism formed during and after the feudal years of the dark ages. How they managed to survive the revolutions of 1848 is beyond me. That they espouse racism and eugenics, is one thing, the fact that they crave adoration despite the horrific crimes of their forefathers and their own is another while suckling from the public teat to fill their coffers. I despise kow-towing, social-climbing sycophants who fawn and drool over these embarrassing thowbacks from a by-gone era. The idea that free people choose to be subjects to a monarch beggars belief. How any self-respecting autonomous human adult could want to bow and courtsey to another person who shits and wipes their arse like we all do is just too much for me to bear and leaves me depressed and feeling hopeless. I don’t wish any harm to these ridiculous individuals, I just wish I they would slip into obscurity where they and their kind firmly belong.

    • avatar
      John Davison

      I suggest you take on a typical week’s work for Elizabeth II and see how you feel afterwards. Also bearing in mind that she is at an age when most people have been comfortably retired for twenty years or more.

  107. avatar
    Maarten Vervloet

    I can start by giving the definition of a true Republic (which most certainly does not include dictatorships like Syria and North-Korea)

    “A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law”

    That is the definition of a Republic, not whether they call or don’t call themselves a republic

    I’ve heard here that Republics cost more than Monarchies, so let’s check the different kinds of Republics. Almost all current (real) republics have a president, we can divide them in 3 categories:
    1) Presidential System: The Elected Head of State is also the Head of Government (e.g. USA)
    2) Parliamentary System: The Elected Head of State has a more symbolic function (e.g. Ireland)
    3) Mixture: the Head of State shares power with a Head of government (e.g. France)

    Yes, it is quite possible that in 1, there could be a higher cost connected to the president then to a monarch. However, one has to take into account that those states do not have to pay for a prime minister (which also costs money)

  108. avatar
    Friso

    The Romans already said ‘mundus vult decipi’, the world wants to be deceived.
    And that is the problem with too many people, they rather believe in a fairy tale, probably because they find real life too hard.

    • avatar
      John Davison

      I think most people who respect the Queen see the institution quite clearly for what it is: a non-political focus for positive national identity.

  109. avatar
    Samuel Goddard

    Jingoism and historical amnesia are not positive unless you are a revisionist and want to morph the facts to suit your brainwashed world view. Hereditary monarchy is, on principle, morally reprehensible. Those who voluntarily grovel and genuflect to this system have obviously been conditioned to accept the staus quo where they are the exploited slaves (house niggers, Malcolm X) who adore their masters. I would never bow to anyone because of a title bestowed upon them by some other genetically weak theif who, in turn, stole it or received it for being the bastard son of another bully with delusions of grandeur.

  110. avatar
    Friso

    To Samuel Goddard on 13 and 15 June: very well spoken!

    • avatar
      Samuel Goddard

      Thank you Frisco. My views have hardened considerably since last year. On reading my comments I think I went lightly on them

  111. avatar
    Bob

    No. Europe’s constitutional monarchs function as a living, personal symbol of the nation; one that is above politics and which, more often than not, the people identify with and unite around. Contrast this with presidential republics, like the United States, in which the elected president is hated by 50 percent of the citizenry, depending on which party is in power. As for the costs to maintain a monarchy, compare those with costs to support the Executive Office of the President and, with the possible exception of the U.K., you won’t find a tremendous difference. And let’s not forget that constitutional monarchies are as democratic as republics are. The monarch has no political power; the government’s executive, legislative, and judicial power being invested in the elected prime minister, parliament, and the courts.

  112. avatar
    Hughes de Pagan

    A descendant of a good number of ancient Royal families I find the subject of this discussion quite interesting.

    Upon reading about all the scandals and shameful behavior on the part of the so called Royals of the 20th and 21st Centuries (their lack of self decorum, and genuine sense of dignity), I am starting to search for a better way for nations to have a reformed monarchy that is answerable to the people, one that is directly accountable to its subjects.

    Perhaps it is time to adopt a fresh, new approach to the old concept of monarchy. My concept is a monarchy of the people, elected by the people. A new monarchical system in which the people would be given the opportunity to choose (via democratic elections) who they wish to be their monarchs. To qualify as candidates, only couples that have an impeccable reputation would be allowed to become candidates. They would have to prove that they have legitimate interest in the well-being of their nation by showing a solid record of social responsibility, such as their charitable/philanthropic/volunteerism record, as well as their personal level of integrity and cultural sophistication. They would also have to exhibit impeccable manners, and genuine sense of humility, and a strong sense of compassion. This would be a royal family representing the best aspects of enlightened humanity, in order to inspire the rest of the people. They would be allowed to hold on to the throne provided they are not involved in any kinds of scandals or questionable behavior. Shall that ever happen, the people would have once again the opportunity to elect a new royal family.

    • avatar
      Bradley

      You speak of an Elective Monarchy my friend. Me, being a citizen of a Republic, have not known the joys and outrages of being under a monarch. Though I have often pondered as to what it would be like.

      If the system you have described were to be put into effect on all existing monarchies, I feel that it would better the opinion on the subject of monarchy.

      I personally would like the system to be applied to an Empire style of rule, but it is merely fantasy.

  113. avatar
    Lee Chang McSpecial

    Yes, because the monarchy is illuminati 666 they r secrtly summun saytan

    • avatar
      Ling Ling

      u r so rite

  114. avatar
    Prince du Sang

    Absolutely Not! I rather be ruled by a human rather than an abstract construct that self-righteously propels its views on others, I am not connected, nor do I relate to “The People” or ‘The General Will”, I am an individual. Critics argue that people would be slaves, yet people are currently slaves to money, the media, greed, hunger, disease, the universe, emotions, the law, factional politics, consumerism, mediocrity, and so on. You want slavery?, why don’t you check your smartphone or tablet you criticizing robots. Also, human nature is not necessarily good or bad, it is a mixture of both, and it also depends on your individual definition of goodness.

    Passion and emotions are an essential aspect of humanity, don’t brush such things off as mere fairy-tales, although fairy-tales have there place as well. Also, “progress” is subjective and is dependent on the individual. My idea of “progress”, I’m sure, differs from yours, and so on.

    I am a monarchist because I am human. For passion! For glory!
    Also, in the least respectable argument I can proclaim; I rather be ruled by one rat then millions

  115. avatar
    A H Burke

    Yes, absolutely……all one need to do is study the history of this effete corps of
    of impudent, thieving, lazy, good for nothing, n’re do well pretenders with the family values of Henry VIII.

  116. avatar
    alan B'stard MP

    We need more Monarchies

  117. avatar
    Geff

    The royal family are constantly under scrutiny and criticism from the press and the public, but have never once complained. The Queen has faithfully served our country will for 65 years, attending charity events and entertaining foreign leaders on most days. She pays taxes and is even denied the vote, yet she has not complained once. Isn’t it time for us all to show a little gratitude?

    • avatar
      Alex Curtis

      Geff, you’re a paid lackey! So according to your brilliant reason, they should be allowed to exist because they have never complained and because they have served well for over 65yrs. Listen, genius, would you complain if the world were handed to you on a silver platter? Exactly, what you say is stupid and ridiculous! Everyone is suppose to pay taxes, you idiot! Show a little gratitude, you’re a complete wack job and a paid lackey!

  118. avatar
    Edward

    All the royals are entirely illegitimate. They all descend from Christian 1 Denmark
    If you check the DNA Canute is the last legitimate Z63. General opinion that Christopher 1 is the illegitimate. Our own Royal Family have a strain of R1B which some claim is hybrid. They have never lived beyond 4 generations without going through the female line since the crown was stolen in the war of the roses and even with this strain of DNA or a hybrid or illegitimate insertion are hardly likely to. In fact there not.

  119. avatar
    Pat

    Yes!
    As monarchy was creation of Pope & derivative of Holy Roman Emperor, none are necessary to government. Most are a drain upon national finances, and all set up and maintain an artificial hierarchy inconsistent with human character of equality where all are worthy, and none are superior. That is an American view but appropriate for all nations today. Monarchy is obsolete because democracy demands the absence of potentates, rulers, sovereigns, autocrats, and dictators.

    That cannot be accomplished peaceably by sutaining them, and encouraging them. Progress cannot be attained while embracing a preference for hierarchies.
    As man made, they can be undone, as easily as they were created. Dynasties are not devine institutions meant for governance; they are to perpetuate family trees. Hoarding resources under the guise of necessity is archaic.

  120. avatar
    Bradley

    When I was scouring the internet for an article such as this, I happened to come upon a post that, for me, made the most sense about the opinion upon monarchy, true monarchy.

    People despise and dislike monarchies because it represents uncertainty. The people aren’t sure if the newly crowned monarch will be a great one, or become a despotic tyrant, and they despise that uncertainty. They would prefer a system that does away with such uncertainty and gives them mediocrity and more of the same. Something they have become accustomed to, something they feel is familiar, something that feels right.

    With monarchies, you have the chance of great and terrible leaders, with the chance of either being of equal value. Maybe the monarch will go down in the annals of history as either the greatest or the worst monarch the world had ever seen.

    With Republics and Parliments, you lose that chance and get more of the same, no real lasting change or effect, as the new administration will come in and sweep away all that those who came before had done, be they good or bad, and so continues the cycle of more of the same with the new administration and the next one after.

    It is for this reason that there will never be another true monarchy ever again.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.