[Kaiserschmarrn]

Not entirely on topic but sort of. It really seems to be the case that in much of Eastern Europe communism had the effect of freezing social attitudes.

The Romanian government considering referendum to re-establish monarchy

[fokker]

Not entirely on topic but sort of. It really seems to be the case that in much of Eastern Europe communism had the effect of freezing social attitudes.

The Romanian government considering referendum to re-establish monarchy

If there was a referendum in Austria to re-establish constitional monarchy would you vote against? I heard Austrians are proud of their history.

The deceased King Michael of Romania was a good and decent man. That can rarely be said about elected politicians. People tend to look into the past when they are unhappy with present. Communism is also seen as a failed experiment forced from outside. If I was Romanian I would have supported this move.

[Heisenberg]

I don't know if monarchies are necessarily freer than republics, but it seems blindingly obvious that a republic is no guarantee of liberty. The vast majority of the world's republics are despotisms, and constitutional monarchies are overrepresented among the world's freest countries.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

If there was a referendum in Austria to re-establish constitional monarchy would you vote against? I heard Austrians are proud of their history.

No, I wouldn't vote against, but I think I'm in a small minority.

As in most western countries what people think about Austria's history correlates with their politics. There are of course some uncontroversial subjects. Not even leftists think (as far as I know at least) that Mozart is "problematic", but they do see Germany as a role model in how a country should deal with its past and that's not restricted to WWII.

I don't know if monarchies are necessarily freer than republics, but it seems blindingly obvious that a republic is no guarantee of liberty. The vast majority of the world's republics are despotisms, and constitutional monarchies are overrepresented among the world's freest countries.

Indeed. Particularly in systems with largely ceremonial heads of state it's difficult to see why a monarch fulfilling this role should be worse. The fact that they have this role for life and are educated to do it probably works in favour of monarchies on balance.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, I wouldn't vote against, but I think I'm in a small minority.

As in most western countries what people think about Austria's history correlates with their politics. There are of course some uncontroversial subjects. Not even leftists think (as far as I know at least) that Mozart is "problematic", but they do see Germany as a role model in how a country should deal with its past and that's not restricted to WWII.

I think there is something ironic in a democratic referendum to restore a monarchy, after all, the presumed authority of a monarch does not originate in the social contract. Hobbes was the only thinker to ever claim so, but I doubt in casting your vote you would advocating for his Leviathan.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, it is not in the interest of monarchies to be totalitarian even if they are inherently authoritarian and this is purely because of structural concerns regarding hereditary rule; however, if there is a restoration of a monarchy in the future and in any serious measure, it will be more akin to the Caesarian model and not the models the west had been familiar with prior to the Napoleanic wars. We are heading forward to an imperial state in the west, not backwards towards provincial monarchs, for better-or-worse. As a Traditionalist, I would prefer this imperial state to originate from an established royal line rather than some sort Junta-esque dictator masquerading as a benevolent and democratically supported El Presidente.

But I guess we'll see

[SolarCross]

I think there is something ironic in a democratic referendum to restore a monarchy, after all, the presumed authority of a monarch does not originate in the social contract. Hobbes was the only thinker to ever claim so, but I doubt in casting your vote you would advocating for his Leviathan.

I can see that irony however if you think of it in a propertarian way it is actually less ironic. The kingdom is in some sense the rightful property of the king, it is stolen or usurped, and then others later decide to do the right thing and return it. Think of it as a court returning stolen property to its rightful owner.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I can see that irony however if you think of it in a propertarian way it is actually less ironic. The kingdom is in some sense the rightful property of the king, it is stolen or usurped, and then others later decide to do the right thing and return it. Think of it as a court returning stolen property to its rightful owner.

Hmmm, that is an interesting point, I suppose that I don't mind your perspective; however, it still feels kinda like the authority of the monarch is beholden to the body politik in such a scenario. Such would seem to undermine the monarchy especially if the monarchy is believed to have any legitimate authority that can still be said to transcend, as oppose to originating from, the masses.

I heard the Putin tossed around restoring the monarchy, but that could've been fake news.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I think there is something ironic in a democratic referendum to restore a monarchy, after all, the presumed authority of a monarch does not originate in the social contract. Hobbes was the only thinker to ever claim so, but I doubt in casting your vote you would advocating for his Leviathan.

Agreed. It's also somewhat ironic that such a referendum would decrease democratic rights.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, it is not in the interest of monarchies to be totalitarian even if they are inherently authoritarian and this is purely because of structural concerns regarding hereditary rule; however, if there is a restoration of a monarchy in the future and in any serious measure, it will be more akin to the Caesarian model and not the models the west had been familiar with prior to the Napoleanic wars. We are heading forward to an imperial state in the west, not backwards towards provincial monarchs, for better-or-worse. As a Traditionalist, I would prefer this imperial state to originate from an established royal line rather than some sort Junta-esque dictator masquerading as a benevolent and democratically supported El Presidente.

But I guess we'll see

If that ever happens using our royals would be the best option, although I'm not at all confident in such a prediction.

[Rugoz]

I couldn't find any information on this supposed referendum.

There are plenty of constitutional monarchies in Europe, that doesn't mean the Monarchs have substantial power.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I couldn't find any information on this supposed referendum.

There isn't one, although as the article I linked states there may be one.

See here and here (in Romanian).

Google translate from the Romanian article.

Bădălău (PSD) states the hypothesis of a referendum on monarchy: People can be asked / Tudose: I'm Republican

PSD Executive President Niculae Bădălău on Monday declared the hypothesis of calling for a referendum on the monarchy, and he said that the Romanian people could be asked whether they wanted a republic or a monarchy, and that PSD did not rule out such a referentum to take place in the future near.

[BeheadTheFrog]

I heard the Putin tossed around restoring the monarchy

Probably only so he could make himself Tsar.

[SolarCross]

Probably only so he could make himself Tsar.

He would probably be the best qualified for the role.

[Doug64]

While I can't see the British monarchy acquiring an absolute power that it has never had, it would be interesting if it acquired something along the lines of the US presidency and so joined the US president as the last/restored examples of medieval monarchy. As I understand it the Queen already possesses the theoretical power to reject legislation or a prime minister chosen by Parliament.

[Victoribus Spolia]

While I can't see the British monarchy acquiring an absolute power that it has never had, it would be interesting if it acquired something along the lines of the US presidency and so joined the US president as the last/restored examples of medieval monarchy. As I understand it the Queen already possesses the theoretical power to reject legislation or a prime minister chosen by Parliament.

All power is theoretical until it is used.

The powers retained by the Crown are actually quite impressive and it cannot be precluded that their reassertion could occur in a time of national crisis.

In 2003 the British Government released documents about what powers the monarchy actually retained that were merely executed by Parliament on her behalf. The documents revealed that:

1. The Monarchy retains the right to declare war (without the consent of Parliament).

2. Retains legal control of the Armed Forces as commander-in-chief.

3. Is beyond the information act and cannot be prosecuted in the UK, as well as retains diplomatic immunity in all nations.

4. Retains the power to charge and detain people in the UK as well as seize their property because they are not citizens but subjects of the Crown.

5. The Monarchy also has authority over the seas of the domain and can, unilaterally, recruit ships and (arguably) restrict any coming in or out of the nation.

6. The monarchy also retains the right to dissolve Parliament, and can call a new election for parliament if He/She does not like the ones that were voted in, and the monarch can appoint a new prime minister without subjecting the matter to a vote at all.

7. The Monarchy also retains the right to declare peace with any nation, not to mention war, as mentioned above.

8. The Monarchy cannot legislate laws, but Royal assent is required for the passage of any legislation and the Monarch could theoretically appoint new ministers until He/She got the legislation He/She wanted.

9. Likewise, the Monarch must first give consent to any law that affects the monarchy specifically before it can be discussed at all in Parliament. (this was done in 1999 when the Queen refused to allow discussion of a bill that would give parliament independent authority to approve air strikes in Iraq).

10. This is also besides the monarch's authority over the church of England and the Crown could unilaterally initiate reform of that body away from its decadent, and dare I say "secular" character.

The following PDF has the whole deal:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N03861.pdf

Here is a quotation of the summarized powers from this article: http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight ... wers-22069

UK PARLIAMENT (CC)
The Royal Prerogative are a set number of powers and privileges held by The Queen as part of the British constitution. Nowadays, a lot of these powers are exercised on Her Majesty’s behalf by ministers – things such as issuing or withdrawing passports that, without the Royal Prerogative, would require an act of parliament each time.

Over time, the prerogative powers have been used less and less though the important thing in our Constitutional Monarchy is that they still exist, they remain a means of protecting democracy in this country ensuring that no one can simply seize power.

Victorian constitutionalist Walter Bagehot defined The Queen’s rights as, the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ – but these rights are not the same as her powers, as we will now see.

The Queen’s prerogative powers vary and fall into different categories…

POLITICAL POWERS

The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

Summoning/Proroguing Parliament – The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.

Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law.Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.

Secondary Legislation – The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.

Appoint/Remove Ministers –Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.

Appointing the Prime Minister – The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.

Declaration of War – The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.

Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.

JUDICIAL POWERS

The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.

Royal Pardon – The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.

ARMED FORCES

The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.

Commander-in-Chief –The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Commissioning of Officers – The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions(when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).

Disposition of the Forces – The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.

HONOURS

One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.

Creation of Peerages – The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.
Font of Honour – It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.

MISCELLANEOUS POWERS

Other powers Her Majesty holds include:

Control of Passports – The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative– this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.

Requisitioning of Ships – This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982.

[SolarCross]

@Victoribus Spolia It is also worth remembering that this list deals only with Britain but the British Monarchy is also the monarchy of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada & a whole bunch of islands.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Victoribus Spolia It is also worth remembering that this list deals only with Britain but the British Monarchy is also the monarchy of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada & a whole bunch of islands.

INDEED.

Haters fail to realize the power of the monarchy.

[B0ycey]

At least you acknowledge the Monarchy is the Dark Side.

The Queens powers are artificial and ceremonial. If you only knew the lack of power the monarchy actually has you would know the true power lies in Westminster. Parliament can write away and vote off the Queens powers overnight.

[Victoribus Spolia]

At least you acknowledge the Monarchy is the Dark Side.

The Queens powers are artificial and ceremonial. If you only knew the lack of power the monarchy actually has you would know the true power lies in Westminster. Parliament can write away and vote off the Queens powers overnight.

Last time they tried to vote away some the Queen's powers, she killed it. DEAD.

You fail to realize her majesty's position:

[SolarCross]

Who is loyal to the Queen?
- Armed Forces
- Her Majesties Revenue Collection
- Civil Service
- Foreign Office
- Secret Service
- also, hilariously, parliament itself

Who is loyal to parliament?
- The people? Nope polls show the monarchy is by far and away far more popular with the plebs for a least a hundred years than parliament ever was.

So where does the power lie really? Both formally and actually it is with the monarchy whatever else @B0ycey may fantasise.

[Doug64]

All power is theoretical until it is used.

The powers retained by the Crown are actually quite impressive and it cannot be precluded that their reassertion could occur in a time of national crisis.

That's an impressive list of powers. Though I suspect that if she actually tried to exercise most of them it would instantly result in a constitutional crisis.