Having a king is super cool!

[CrunchyRay]

Well, I'm from the US, so obviously we don't have one.

But in the early days of the Constitution, there was a lot of debate as to how "Monarchical" the office of the President should be. When Adams was Washington's Vice President, he tried to push a bill through Congress that would officialy style the President as "His Excellency" or "His Republican Majesty". That was obviously not a popular idea, even though Washington was revered more than any other President since. Washington himself insisted on being addressed only as "Mister President", and of course the office itself has a pretty simple title.

Essentially Adams believed that the central government should be the strongest authority, and the President should be the primary policymaker. Jefferson on the other hand supported a weak central government with the legislature as the main authority.

Since our Head of State and Head of Government form a single office, there are a lot of "Monarchical" trappings to the President. As Head of State he does a lot of the things that figurehead monarchs do, such as receive ambassadors, host state functions, and presents medals and awards.

I'm glad that we don't have an hereditary monarchy, but I can see how other countries keep theirs out of a sense of national pride and the desire for a symbol that represents the country as a whole and that they can be proud of.

 

[Sticky Squid]

Here in England we're ruled by a German.

She was born in England. English.

In the UK there's a lot of hate towards the monarchy, which just goes to show how misplaced peoples attention and intellect is. The monarchy brings a lot of money into the UK, far more than they use, so I see them as a god thing. Even better is the fact they have no real power, so it's the best of both worlds.

I wish Parliament was permanently dissolved though, and replaced by a benevolent constitutional democracy instead. A bunch of posh eton bumboys jeering at each other in a room, while being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so? Burn the lot of them.

I know I just like to say it.
Though the Queen does have power to reject the current government and call for a new election to be held if it is felt that they are not doing their job correctly.

Ha, it's cool, just met some people recently who were trying to call for a dissolution of the monarchy based on them not being British, and it angered me. Now I have a knee jerk reaction to them being referred to as German XD

There are people who actually get that serious about it?
Sounds like a rather pathetic thing to get mad about.

 

[Gingernerd]

Completely apathetic about the UK's monarchy. They rank slightly above the gossipy celeb magazines and their function isn't too dissimilar.

The few day's break due to the royal wedding this year, on the other hand, is super cool!

 

[LiudvikasT]

They need to be eliminated, even if they have no power it is still unfair when someone is born into such job.

 

[manythings]

A Monarchy is also an unending drain on public funds. We have no need for such relics outside of history books.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Eh, we have the Royal family over here, for Queen and country, and all that.
I would actually give my life if any member of the British Royal family were in danger >.>
I'm a good little pawn >.>

I like England having a Queen. Because it sounds cool having a monarchy, and she doesn't do anything, which means nothing drastic happens, and if it does, we can blame it on the people we vote for, and change them.

The queen/ruling monarch does actually have the power to dissolve parliament and get the polls going to bring in a new one. Last tie I checked, anyway. Parliament also had/has to be opened each time by the monarch, so the government actually had/has to wait for the ruling monarch.
Can't remember the last time, if ever, that a monarch prorogued parliament >.>
So our monarch isn't a figurehead completely devoid of power and influence.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

U.S. girl here, no king, though it's interesting to see the way other countries feel about their governing officials isn't all that different from how many feel about our president and the three party check/balance system here.

 

[DasUberCow]

In Norway we have a royal family. A king, queen and a crown prince. naturally they have no real power whatsoever, because that would be silly. But then what's the point? The whole thing is really quite strange right? I've allways liked the fact that we have a royal family but ive also had a tough time explaining why. It all dawned on me during the ski world championship the other day. It was back in Norway at last after over a decade. No other sporting event (except the winter Olympics) comes even close to being such a big deal. Our king was at the center of it all. Every winner of an event is personally congratulated by the king and his family after it's conclusion on the royal part of the stands. It's ritual that all the athletes seems to love. Maybe it makes them feel like knights or something.

The king is like a living, breathing historical artifact. A living piece of our past. And I think that's pretty awesome. Besides, what would we do with our royal palace, without a king to but in it?

Does your country have a king? what are your thoughts on royalty?

As a fellow Norwegian what you say really resonates with me. I think it's pretty cool, and is it doesn't have any detrimental political effects. I was at the 30km skiing event where Therese Johaug won. Was 100k people up at Holmenkollen and pretty much everyone cheered when she hugged the king and queen up at their bit. Was epic gåsehud.

 

[Palademon]

Eh, we have the Royal family over here, for Queen and country, and all that.
I would actually give my life if any member of the British Royal family were in danger >.>
I'm a good little pawn >.>

I like England having a Queen. Because it sounds cool having a monarchy, and she doesn't do anything, which means nothing drastic happens, and if it does, we can blame it on the people we vote for, and change them.

The queen/ruling monarch does actually have the power to dissolve parliament and get the polls going to bring in a new one. Last tie I checked, anyway. Parliament also had/has to be opened each time by the monarch, so the government actually had/has to wait for the ruling monarch.
Can't remember the last time, if ever, that a monarch prorogued parliament >.>
So our monarch isn't a figurehead completely devoid of power and influence.

I meant more in the sense that unlike people who are voted in, they don't have to make promises, and therefore mostly end up just holding a status quo, and not making new decisions.

 

[Gluzzbung]

I really don't like the idea that a monarch doesn't actually have to work. In England, they try tom make it seem like they work, what with Harry (or is it Andrew) in the army and all of them having done charity work at some point in the year but all it is is trapesing around the UK visiting hotspots and talking to the press, and that's all the public see. I would like to see some of them hold down a job, maybe it would just be temping at a firm of some description to potnetially just working at a counter. Without this they get labeled as being stupid layabouts getting someone else to pay for their fun.
I know this is a little off topic but I'd also like to see a prime minister who's actually affected by the decisions he and the cabinet make and a deputy prime minister who isn't afraid to put his foot in the door and stop Mr. Cameron from doing what he likes.

 

[mGoLos]

Spoken as a Dane: It's like having the worlds most expensive welfare clients who has castles and influence for some reason best explored in the middle ages. Apparently it's also a huge deal whenever they procreate. Those twins sure are babies danish media, thanks for the update, that's nice ...

Also, they are better than me and can get away with many many breaches of common law such as speeding and even driving while intoxicated.

It can be amusing to read about their follies, but it's just not worth it.

So in short, it's much like having your very own brand of nationalist catholicism.

 

[Verlander]

Here in England we're ruled by a German.

She was born in England. English.

In the UK there's a lot of hate towards the monarchy, which just goes to show how misplaced peoples attention and intellect is. The monarchy brings a lot of money into the UK, far more than they use, so I see them as a god thing. Even better is the fact they have no real power, so it's the best of both worlds.

I wish Parliament was permanently dissolved though, and replaced by a benevolent constitutional democracy instead. A bunch of posh eton bumboys jeering at each other in a room, while being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so? Burn the lot of them.

I know I just like to say it.
Though the Queen does have power to reject the current government and call for a new election to be held if it is felt that they are not doing their job correctly.

Ha, it's cool, just met some people recently who were trying to call for a dissolution of the monarchy based on them not being British, and it angered me. Now I have a knee jerk reaction to them being referred to as German XD

There are people who actually get that serious about it?
Sounds like a rather pathetic thing to get mad about.

Probably not as pathetic as me getting defensive about it

 

[YouShouldDeleteThisAccount]

New Zealand here. We still technically have Elizabeth as our monarch.

As you can imagine, said monarchy means even less when you're on the other side of the world and they barely have anything to do with us anymore. The Governor General represents the Crown while the monarch isn't here. All they really do is just sign the different laws after they've gone through Parliament, to make them officially law. All a bit symbolic really.

I suppose this would've meant something at the time of independence. As many New Zealander's felt British and felt loyalty to the Crown and the Empire. Just that we were on the other side of the world. These days, we have a sense of independence though. So it doesn't mean a lot.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I live in the US (known to many here [at least in the state I'm unfortunate enough to live in] as Murikah). We don't have a king, or anything like that, though honestly, I think that if we could get a benevolent king shit would be a lot better here. I seriously hate the system we have here, it's built on so much fear that it has rendered itself almost completely useless in that no one can pass any god damned bills in order to make some desperately needed changes. If we had a king here to kick our ass and shut up our bitching because we don't get a choice one way or the other, well, yeah, it could work out really bad, but it might be the only way to get some changes we actually need.

So, I will extend to any countries with powerful (but benevolent) kings the same offer I always extend to Canadians, please, take up an army, invade us, annex us, and force us to get our act together, because we're not gonna do it if no one makes us.

Also, any benevolent computer overlords are also invited to take over our country. I am totally down for a technocracy.

 

[Ichapp]

I'm a good Canadian boy, and I love the Queen. She's so dignified and awesome, plus she's on my money!

 

[alrekr]

In the UK there's a lot of hate towards the monarchy, which just goes to show how misplaced peoples attention and intellect is. The monarchy brings a lot of money into the UK, far more than they use, so I see them as a god thing. Even better is the fact they have no real power, so it's the best of both worlds.

I wish Parliament was permanently dissolved though, and replaced by a benevolent constitutional democracy instead. A bunch of posh eton bumboys jeering at each other in a room, while being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so? Burn the lot of them.

Actualy we(I assume your English) are a constitutional democracy (correct term is constitutional monarchy) The royal family does have quite a bit of power, seeing as they can veto any law and even deny someone office as PM (Though the last Royal to use this power ended up dead)

I am idealogical against royalty due to being marxist and whatnot; and rich people who's only reason for being rich is because of being born or God as many Royalists like to say doesen't bode well with me.

The Royals do actauly cost us quite a bit (I won't get into how much they cost and how much they bring in as I'm not an economist)

The irony is the correct Royal Family, thats right the true bloodline live in Austrailia. Thats due to some mixs ups and affairs during the past (hundreds of years in the past). Historians manged to trace the true royals.

 

[Meanmoose]

In Norway we have a royal family. A king, queen and a crown prince. naturally they have no real power whatsoever, because that would be silly. But then what's the point? The whole thing is really quite strange right? I've allways liked the fact that we have a royal family but ive also had a tough time explaining why. It all dawned on me during the ski world championship the other day. It was back in Norway at last after over a decade. No other sporting event (except the winter Olympics) comes even close to being such a big deal. Our king was at the center of it all. Every winner of an event is personally congratulated by the king and his family after it's conclusion on the royal part of the stands. It's ritual that all the athletes seems to love. Maybe it makes them feel like knights or something.

The king is like a living, breathing historical artifact. A living piece of our past. And I think that's pretty awesome. Besides, what would we do with our royal palace, without a king to but in it?

Does your country have a king? what are your thoughts on royalty?

As a fellow Norwegian what you say really resonates with me. I think it's pretty cool, and is it doesn't have any detrimental political effects. I was at the 30km skiing event where Therese Johaug won. Was 100k people up at Holmenkollen and pretty much everyone cheered when she hugged the king and queen up at their bit. Was epic gåsehud.

I felt the exact same way^^ I actually looked for footage on youtube, but sadly I found none =(

 

[Lethos]

In the UK there's a lot of hate towards the monarchy, which just goes to show how misplaced peoples attention and intellect is. The monarchy brings a lot of money into the UK, far more than they use, so I see them as a god thing. Even better is the fact they have no real power, so it's the best of both worlds.

I wish Parliament was permanently dissolved though, and replaced by a benevolent constitutional democracy instead. A bunch of posh eton bumboys jeering at each other in a room, while being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so? Burn the lot of them.

Actualy we(I assume your English) are a constitutional democracy (correct term is constitutional monarchy) The royal family does have quite a bit of power, seeing as they can veto any law and even deny someone office as PM (Though the last Royal to use this power ended up dead)

I am idealogical against royalty due to being marxist and whatnot; and rich people who's only reason for being rich is because of being born or God as many Royalists like to say doesen't bode well with me.


The Royals do actauly cost us quite a bit (I won't get into how much they cost and how much they bring in as I'm not an economist)

The irony is the correct Royal Family, thats right the true bloodline live in Austrailia. Thats due to some mixs ups and affairs during the past (hundreds of years in the past). Historians manged to trace the true royals.

The Queen is theoretical allowed to do this. But if she were to try then she would simply get laughed at. There is a lot of stuff you can't take seriously in British politics. The Prime Minister for example, doesn't constitutionally exist.

It's the same way that the Queen doesn't literally give the 'a-ok' for laws to be passed. It's just a figure of speech in these modern times.

 

[Verlander]

In the UK there's a lot of hate towards the monarchy, which just goes to show how misplaced peoples attention and intellect is. The monarchy brings a lot of money into the UK, far more than they use, so I see them as a god thing. Even better is the fact they have no real power, so it's the best of both worlds.

I wish Parliament was permanently dissolved though, and replaced by a benevolent constitutional democracy instead. A bunch of posh eton bumboys jeering at each other in a room, while being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so? Burn the lot of them.

Actualy we(I assume your English) are a constitutional democracy (correct term is constitutional monarchy) The royal family does have quite a bit of power, seeing as they can veto any law and even deny someone office as PM (Though the last Royal to use this power ended up dead)

I am idealogical against royalty due to being marxist and whatnot; and rich people who's only reason for being rich is because of being born or God as many Royalists like to say doesen't bode well with me.

The Royals do actauly cost us quite a bit (I won't get into how much they cost and how much they bring in as I'm not an economist)

The irony is the correct Royal Family, thats right the true bloodline live in Austrailia. Thats due to some mixs ups and affairs during the past (hundreds of years in the past). Historians manged to trace the true royals.

We have an unwritten constitution, which is good in that it allows flexibility, but bad in the fact that each new government can get away with a lot and not be answerable to it. That's something that I personally feel needs to change

I saw the Australia thing, but it depends entirely on when you consider the "true" royal bloodline to be. The current Royals are as legit as possible.

I'd object to the monarchy if they actually ruled, but they don't they have a power that they don't use, and wouldn't use, and I'm sure that if they tried there would be some kind of revolution. I suppose the question would be that if a country or person has a power, but it's impossible to use it, does that make it a threat?

As for the Marxist thing, well, I'm with you on that, but in a capitalist country, people are born into positions by the very structure of the thing. As the Royal Family don't lord it over the common man, I have a different priority of "target", aka Parliament and the Lords.

 

[Gigano]

I'm fairly indifferent towards position of the Danish Queendom, it generally pose no problem outside the world of principles, provides something for people to adore as historical relic/scorn as the pathetic circus it is today, and draw some tourists.

Considering that the penal code article about double punishment for trespassing on the Queens property has just been evoked for the first time ever, the direction it's heading is unfortunate though, as this is in direct violation of the line laid down by the European convention of human rights, after which persons of societal status must tolerate more when it comes to freedom of expression.

So slowly moving from indifference to antipathy in regard to monarchy.