Countries like Spain and England still have monarchy however the monarchy in England doesn't have any real power so much as influence over the people.

There are some that would believe there is no need to abolish it and some who believe it should be removed immediately.

There is the point that monarchy preserves a nations cultural heritage. However the monarchy is England particularly has become more of a joke in the masses of the media.

In addition to that monarchies are undemocratic. If the monarchy was to retain any significant political power then it shouldn't be because someone was lucky enough to be born into it.

In the past monarchies served their purpose to let the people know who has power over whom. The Kings and Queens ruled the lands but in modern age there is no need for them.

Where would you stand on the matter?

Well I live in Sweden which is a monarchy and I can honestly say that I don't really care too much about but if I had to choose i'd rather it was abolished.
g
The royal family here pretty much holds no power whatsoever politically (infact i'm pretty sure they're sort forced into being neutral on most issues) and they really only serve more of a reprenstative function at times.  I don't really see it holding much of a cultural value anymore. Heck almost the only times they're ever brought up is when a member of the royal family is having a child or getting married and suddenly we're all supposed to care for whatever reason.

I don't really see much of a reason to keep it to be honest and studies have shown that the majority of people here aren't in favour of keeping it anymore.

Zlinqx : I like a lot of your post, especially the 'and suddenly we're supposed to care,' but there is one problem, one definite reason the monarchies should be kept in place.
Wartime.
Great Britain, World War 2
German bombing raids have crippled the country, hope is running dry. Prime Minister Winston Churchill speaks of pressing on, and is the main source of news on the war. His speeches are inspirational, but they don't give the one thing the people need.
Hope.
This is where e Monarchy comes in. They encourage the populace, assure them that it will be alright, that they can,[i/] in fact, tech the light at the end of the tunnel.
This is why, I believe nations have kept monarchies in existence.
Of course, Obama would just assure us that we're the strongest country after all of his military cuts, and do so while the last American is being shot to death.

Titan127 : Well I wont claim to know the situation in say England compared to Sweden but I'd assume it's somewhat alike and at least here I don't really see hope "running dry" even if it was I doubt the royal family would act as the thing that gives hope, since they don't really serve much of a function to begin with, especially considering we have neighbouring countries much like our own which have abolished the monarchy and it's made pretty much no difference. And when studies have already shown that most people here are in favour of abolishing the monarchy I struggle to see any reason why it should be kept in place.

And I don't really see what Obama has to do with anything.

Zlinqx : Obama was just a joke on how utterly useless it is.
And like I said, it really is only in wartime that they're needed, like if your country is being bombed.
Otherwise, agree, they ARE worthless leeches with no work ethic who make us take the time out of our day to see them get married.

Titan127 : Well I don't really see how they will help during wartimes, I don't really see them boosting the morale of anyone. And they're kind of being forced into their position here so I wouldn't completely blame them for it.

Zlinqx : It worked in WWII in Britain, the Queen kept the morale up while Churchill inspired them to fight...
Hrm...
Alright, American Football is a great analogy.
The Monarchy is kind of like a mascot, it gets you pumped up, while the Coach(Prime Minister, President, whatever you guys have, too lazy to check, sorry), actually manages strategy and war effort.

Titan127 : I get what you're trying to say except the thing is the royal family doesn't really act like a mascot they just sort of keep out of things for the most part and I don't know about other people but if it somehow ended with a war happening here (which I doubt because Sweden tends to be neutral in most conflicts) I wouldn't really get pumped up from them I doubt many would since like I've said we don't even want them to remain in place.

The queen during world war 2 in England played a bigger role in the country and during the second world war overall and was already popular with the people which is probably the reason why that allowed her to become  a symbol in the fight against fascism.

I think they should. However, I'm not totally sure I'm in support for immediate abolition.

That just seems like it would lead to instability, subsequent dictators, or a corrupt voting system under the guise of Democracy.

It may work, but it seems like a slow change from within the monarchy would work better, as what happened in Britain (although it could happen a little faster than the centuries Britain took =P).

Dictatorships are different, and I might be for immediate abolition.
But I haven't put much thought into it, so I'm not certain.

Zlinqx : hrm, point.
Sweden doesn't really get involved, you guys do what the US tries(or used to try) to do, except you do it right.
So...yeah...
I guess in your case(which is probs ,most, but Britain's monarchs are pretty popular) they should be taken out of office and put to work.

Let me talk about this from a constitutional point of view for the UK. The monarch only has her royal prerogative, or prerogative powers as they are sometimes known. These powers originated from the times of Henry the eight where he granted himself a multitude of powers, of course nobody was going to question the king, especially one rather fond of having heads cut off. These powers degraded over time until the time of a king who's name I've forgotten where most of the powers were handed to the Executive (the Prime Minister) and it was stated that no more could be created, nor could their jurisdiction be expanded.

Examples of these prerogative powers are: the ability to sent troops abroad, protecting national security and even the ability to grant a posthumous pardon, of course not all of them are important and some of the lesser ones include the right to keep royal swans and the right not to be taxed. The minor ones are still in the hands of the Queen but all of them are enacted in her name.

Now, if the monarchy was to be abolished then these powers would simply cease to exist which begs the question, if these powers are being held by the Executive, why on earth would the Executive lessen his own power when it would take a great deal of time and expense? Not only this but how would bills be passed when the queen needs to sign off on a bill? In theory an emergency bill could be passed in order to bypass this but such a bill would be deemed secondary legislation which the Judiciary could call into question.

The House of Lords, many of whom are pro monarchy also need to be consulted in order to pass bills in order for them to be called statutes. If the monarchy was to be abolished and therefore bypassed they may well block incoming bills, parliament can ignore the House of Lords after two years but this will severely damage their reputation thus meaning they are unlikely to be re-elected.

In short getting rid of the monarchy will cause a constitutional disaster and it is far more trouble than it's worth, especially when the ones who get rid of them would be the main ones to suffer. This isn't even getting starting on any economic argument. My Constitutional law tutor would probably kill me for simplifying it so much but I didn't feel like writing two pages.

ant123ant : So, someone agrees with me, despite the reasoning being different.
That's good though, right? Advantages to my side of this debate on whether or not e monarchy should be taken out of place.

Blubcreator :

I'm a essentially a monarchist. Democratic values are ultimately values in personal liberty, and I can't assert that as the only value. Personal liberty is often outweighed by other factors, especially if we're considering efficiency and order. The reason you can't drive 150 mph in a school zone is because your personal liberty isn't as important as the lives of children. Yet, the entire democratic system supports whatever the majority opinion is. What if a majority of people wanted mandatory 150 mph in school zones? Democracy would say "ok, done, it's the law now".

A house of representatives is also undemocratic. Those guys make the laws. You vote them in, but you cannot create laws. Only a senator or a representative can create laws. You have no say what they do after they're elected. And we do this because it's efficient. If every citizen got to vote on every law, it would take gobs of time for each citizen to be educated on every detail of every law. We wouldn't do anything else. There wouldn't be productivity because we're too busy trying to understand the 1500 proposed bills for the day.

We also don't vote on military action. We vote for a king who gets a 4 year term that can authorize such action without our consent.

We don't vote for a lot of things. It's totally impractical. But yet we praise the impracticality. We praise the inefficiency. We praise the disorder.

If they want to "depose" their monarchies, they are free to do so, and peacefully. However, the function (Head of State, as opposed to Head of government) will ahve to be filled up.

However, at least for the United Kingdom, I don't see that happening. Not only does it fuel the tabloid industry but I'm pretty sure many will invoke Cromwell should it come to a referendum. Also, as a judge said in a citizenship ceremony in Canada, the Queen also represents the gradually democratic traditions since the Magna Carta. The reason seems valid... but I still think it's too expensive to keep

I've felt this way pretty much my whole life, but I believe that monarchies should be abolished. I've always hated how one family always gets to be royalty. I feel like it should work the same way as in the United States. There should be a vote between 2 different people and the winner gets to be president.

gamerforlifeforever2 : Yeah, let hereditary politicians rule the country instead . But yes, I do agree that monarchies don't serve much of a purpose