IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: How DARE anyone criticise our Royal Family?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JC |
I can't ever see Royalists and Republicans ever agreeing. I think there are some fairly successful countries who do not have a monarchy. I wouldn't include the USA into this current debate as they have never had a monarchy and haven't really been around long enough to fall apart yet. When they get a bit more history behind them then maybe we'll have more idea of how they fare long term.
France was once a world leader but hasn't really had the same impact since their revolution which was one of the most shameful acts in human history ( I do say one of!), and would have been whichever class of people had been sent to madame guilotine. Germany has only taken a lead in Europe through fear based on it's 20th century behavious. When I was living in Poland in the early 90s I witnessed genuine fear of the Germans which still seems to exist today. On the subject of Poland, their monarchy was the only one to ever be elected, although the common people didn't have a vote, but the people kept telling me how they wish for a monarchy "like in England". This is one of the reasons they put the crown back on their national badge. However, even when they had a monarchy they were not exactly world leaders.
The main theme seems to be that, whether for good or bad, all countries undergo dramatic internal changes once they lose their monarchy and turn republic. I think it's true to say that no former monarchy has become more influencial on the world stage than they were when were still a monarchy. Most fell down the ladder. Not necessarily because a nation cannot exist without a monarch, but because their entire identity, sort of their country's DNA, was so altered.
I'm not sure that Eastern European countries would like to be referred to as former communist countries. In my experience most would like to try and forget that part of their history.
The debate will no doubt go on .. and on .. |
|
david |
The Cat wrote:
Modern day Monarchies rule over some of the most influencial and internally stable countries on the planet. I'm sure that can't be entirely coincidence.
sorry to post after myself, but you might like to count the number of non-monarchist countries that are also way up there in the league of successful countries.... France, the US, Germany and many more. |
|
david |
The Cat wrote:
It depends on how you interpret "falling apart". Those Easter Europe countries, for example, which prospered under a Monarchy before WW2 have indeed suffered political turmoil and widespread instability. They rely, even now, on other nations giving them various kinds of support.
The fact that many Eastern European countries are struggling is not down to the fact that they don't have monarchies. It is down to the fact that they were invaded and 'occupied' by the Soviet empire for 4 decades.
Let's not forget that Eastern Europe makes up half (if not more) of our continent, so it is easy to generalise while talking about an extremely diverse part of the world.
I do get what you say about Georgia and a couple of other Eastern European countries (tho one could debate whether Georgia is in Europe) - and how a couple of countries have seen a renaissance of monarchism. i would say that ths is in a minority of countries.
I lived in Hungary for many years and travelled in Eastern Europe extensively, working with ministers and former communist apparatchiks, so I do know what I am talking about...
I think the term Eastern Europe should be replaced with 'former communist countries', as much of what we call Eastern Europe is to the west of Italy, and much of Austria and Germany. |
|
The Cat |
It depends on how you interpret "falling apart". Those Easter Europe countries, for example, which prospered under a Monarchy before WW2 have indeed suffered political turmoil and widespread instability. They rely, even now, on other nations giving them various kinds of support.
The former Soviet State of Georgia wanted to bring back it's old Monarchy to help reunite the country. The family who were by then well established business people in Western Europe decline the invite and, whether as a direct consequence or not, the country has lurched from one crisis to another. The most stable nations in Asia are Japan and Thailand who each have a Monarchy. Likewise in the Far East.
Modern day Monarchies rule over some of the most influencial and internally stable countries on the planet. I'm sure that can't be entirely coincidence.
Without this "institution" all control of our nation would fall into the hands of politicians continually seeking compromises and making false promises in order to win votes to stay in power. Urgh! The very idea! |
|
veritas |
you are correct to some degree. There is really no way of justifying the idea of one family being in the position they are-indeed the very idea of 'aristocracy' is an anathema..a class entirely built on previous generations of bullies and thieves.
But sometimes (maybe it's age) I believe that in the end..someone will rise to the top and it isn't always the best for a country.
Thailand which I visit often, adores their royal family and as a frequent visitor I've gradually begun to realise how important that is to the Thai people.
It's something that binds them together in a way which nothing else can...certainly no political group can.
And a true Royal Family that is dedicated to the people...like the Thai and British Royal families, can have a positive effect.
The cost can be criticized but overall if that money was diluted amongst general spending it would make little difference...or in Britain's case you must agree the Royal Family even as a tourist generator more than pays for itself. |
|
|
|
|
