Poll for the Weekend: Monarchy, Good or Bad?

This week, the media was fawning over pending marriage of Prince William and Middleton. But seriously, my preferred reading of my favorite book Judges condemns monarchy, or at least royal power passed on through inheritance (check the 9th chapter, and my take on it from Tuesday’s Parable Driven Life piece).  If there is one thing the Founders got right, it was the ill necessity of a throne. And for that, I am forever grateful to George Washington, our first President.

So, my poll for this weekend is: Are monarchies good or bad? If good, please, I would like to hear your thoughts in the comments section. If bad, and you agree with me, I would like to hear from you as well.

Enhanced by Zemanta

0 thoughts on “Poll for the Weekend: Monarchy, Good or Bad?

  1. Simon

    The key reason why monarchy is a good thing is because it is better than the republican alternative. There are many reasons why it is better, some specifically in relation to Britain but other more general issues.

    Here is one…

    We have a more impartial head of state..

    Lets compare a few republics.

    USA
    Head of state: President Obama (democrat)
    Head of government: President Obama (democrat)

    FIFTH (but whos counting) French Republic
    Head of state : President Sarkozy (UMP)
    Head of government : Prime Minister Fillon (UMP)

    Federal Republic of Germany
    Head of state : President Wulff (CDU)
    Head of government : Chancellor Merkel (CDU)

    The same political party controls both positions as often happens in many republics . And its even worse than that because in France the French president can simply sack the PM when ever he likes if the president is doing badly in the polls. In Germany Chancellor Merkel and her party got the President his job and it was seen as a vital victory for her.

    A King or Queen that is not a member of a political party is clearly more neutral. So in the UK for example between 1997 and 2003 the labour party was extremely popular. Had we had an election for president without any doubt at all labour would have got their man into the job.

    Controlling both the head of state and head of government position does not seem like a good idea in my view.

    This is just one reason, i can give a ton more.

    Reply
  2. Simon

    Whilst i am a hardcore royalist and would hate for us to adopt any republican system here, i must say the US system is actually one of the most dangerous forms of republics there are and would be my least favoured option (despite the USA being the only republic i have huge respect for).

    I believe having a single head of state and head of government is even more dangerous than a single party controlling the offices. A head of state is meant to be a unifying force. How can he be unifying if half the country voted for the other guy and hate the policies hes introducing?

    You have the real danger that people should “respect the office of the presidency” and in some way be loyal because he is your president. I have no loyalty at all to my prime minister, i voted for his party but he is just a politician. My loyalty is to my Queen. Just as the loyalty of our armed forces is to the Queen and not a political commander in chief.

    In May 2010, 95% of the votes in our parliamentary elections went to political parties that support the monarchy. It provides wonderful unity when most political parties agree on just 1 thing, who our head of state should be.

    So for example..
    The SNP first Minister of Scotland (he supports an independent Scotland) welcomed the royal wedding celebrating the fact the couple fell in love in Scotland. The Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom welcomed the news and pointed out when he was younger he slept on the mall to watch Prince Charles and Diana’s wedding. The Labour First Minister of Wales welcomed the royal wedding celebrating the fact they will live in Wales after the wedding. All other major political parties welcomed the event.

    The monarchy is a hugely unifying force, bringing people and parties together that share nothing else in common.

    Reply
  3. Simon

    Sorry for making 3 posts in a row. But i notice that there is a picture of the president from the West Wing show (one of my favourite American tv shows), there is an episode of the west wing where Toby is speaking with leaders of some country and he says to them how they should not adopt the American type republic because of the risks and that they should go for the parliamentary model instead.

    Anyway night.

    Reply
    1. Rod of Alexandria Post author

      Thank Simon for you input.

      I actually prefer a multi-party parliamentary system, with a president (formal position) and the Speaker of the House as a prime minister type figure.

      And yes, I remember that West Wing episode.

      Reply
      1. Simon

        Something along those lines would certainly be better, but do you think the United States would ever radically change its present system? Sure minor changes are made like the two term limit for presidents, but i can not imagine a complete reorganisation of the American system ever happening… The present one has worked well over the centuries and people understand the system.

        The monarchy here is the same, its our system its a system that actually attracts a lot of positive attention around the world in the way structures of a republican system never could. There are some changes that could be made to tidy up the system, but people should only have a revolution if one is really needed and it is just not here.

        It scares me to think just how radical a change from monarchy to republic would be. For a start our country is called the United Kingdom, so that would have to change. Our anthem would have to change. All our currency would have to change. The term “royal” would have to be removed from so many respected organisations. Ceremonies like the Queens Birthday parade would have to be scrapped because there is no way such things associated with monarchy could continue in a republic, it would be distasteful and offensive. Even our history is defined by “Elizabethan era” “Victorian era” “Georgian era” etc.

        We would surrender so much of our heritage to the history books that we are able to keep alive today and that many people support and like. Whilst people may not choose monarchy if they were starting with a blank bit of paper, Having almost 1000 years of history (with the exception of a brief period where England tried a republic which was one of the darkest times in British history so the monarchy was restored) is not something we should erase from the page. Monarchy helped shape Britain in so many ways and to me the monarch is a living symbol of our history and nation today.

        Reply
        1. Rod of Alexandria Post author

          I do not think it would be that radical change at all. In fact originally in the United States, it was actually a quite beautiful system, where the first place winner for votes for the presidency became president, and the second place person got to be vice president. That deals with your concern about one party gaining too much power because originally the “parties” had to share power. It would not be all that much of a stretch.

          Reply
  4. RadicalRoyalist

    Monarchy in the Bible

    Obedience to Kings enjoined
    Ecclesiastes 8:2-5

    Rights and Duties of Kings
    Proverbs 25:2; Proverbs 25:5-6; Proverbs 25:15;
    Proverbs 29:4; Proverbs 29:12; Proverbs 29:14; Jeremiah 21:12

    Kings exercise executive clemency
    1 Samuel 11:13

    Constitutional restrictions on monarchy
    Deuteronomy 17:18-20; 1 Samuel 10:24-25; 2 Samuel 5:3;
    2 Kings 11:12;
    2 Kings 11:17; 2 Chronicles 23:11;
    Jeremiah 34:8-11; Daniel 6:12-15

    Religious duties of Kings
    Ezekiel 45:9-25; Ezekiel 46:2; Ezekiel 46:4-8

    Loyalty to Kings enjoined
    Proverbs 16:14-15; Ecclesiastes 28:9

    Respect due to Kings
    Job 34:18; Isaiah 8:21; Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17

    Prayer for Kings
    Ezra 6:10

    Prayers for Kings enjoined
    1 Timothy 2:1-2

    Reply
    1. Rod of Alexandria Post author

      The entire Book of Judges: Monarchies condemned

      1st Samuel 8: Samuel grieves that the people want a monarch and tells them the horrific things that they will do.

      All of the major and minor prophets from Jeremiah to Micah: Condemn the monarchs as the major reason why Israel is in exile, and for the injustice they imposed on Israel and Judah.

      Book of Revelation: Only one king necessary, the Lord Jesus Christ.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Simon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *