I think in most cases the royal families are remnants of a past era, in most countries their powers are practically nonexistant and their only duty is to represent their country - mostly in events that involve the royals of another country. While being born royal certainly has its benefits, I for one am not one bit envious of people who have to live their life according to what are often very strict codes of conduct and whose life is followed by the press to the extent of their being harassed by the paparazzi.

Finland has never had royalty of its own (although Friedrich Karl von Hessen officially held the title of King of Finland for a couple of months in 1918) so my exposure to all the pomp and such that goes with monarchy is limited - I saw the Swedish King and Queen while waiting for a plane at Arlanda airport once, and it took me a while to realize who they were - but I have to say that I don't see any benefits in such a system over an elected head of state. Of course, discontinuing a tradition that goes back centuries (if not millenia) in many countries is not something that can be easily done...

I think if you asked most Canadians about having the Queen as our head of state you would see a pretty sharp contrast between young and old. A lot of older people like the tradition and history that the Queen represents... fine. In my opinion, and probably the opinion of most of the younger generation, the queen is a vestigial relic.
I fail to see the point of wasting millions when she or anyone from the royal family visits Canada. Besides goodwill, she gives nothing to Canadian society. All the protocol is ridiculous in my opinion... I remember when the Queen was touring Canada last year there was quite a fuss in the media when our Prime Minister accidentally put his arm around her as she got off the plane, apparently you are not allowed to touch a "royal" in such a manner. That is just the kind of BS that drives me crazy; the queen is just a person, no better and no worse than anyone else. I say it's time for Canada to move on. You can remember the past without dragging it into the future.

I'm one of those people who believes in change. History is great but people must learn from it's mistakes. Even though it's not evident today, How many wars have been fought under King's rules? I am one of those people who will challenge a person who calls himself king/queen. I am a man and I was born with a right to live my life accordingly, I don't need anyone to tell me what to do especially if they don't do anything for me. IMO, there is only one person/thing I will bow down to and that is God. There is no human who I consider above myself except for my parents. Kings and Queens are just human beings who hold the privilage to do as they please by their people. In stating that, I don't have a problem with countries having kings and queens as long as they don't oppose that on me. For example if a king or queen from some other country came in front of me and I was told to bow my head, I would tell that person off because they are not my king or queen. It escapes me why people are willing to pay taxes just to keep a king or queen when they don't do anything.

Really interesting answers guys, thanks for your replies ...you all make very good points and express your opinions very well.

Well, the reason why many wars have been fought under the rule of kings and queens is probably circumstantial - because up until the 20th century, that's just about all there were. Even as democracy, or whatever other forms of government arise and take over, you'll see as many wars fought under them. My point - the form of government is not a factor in wars. Human nature is.

In the past, I think royalty was special because they gave people something to look up to, an idea that their country had an elite and some sort of power. In that sense, you don't need to put monetary 'value' on royalty - you want them to be at their best, and to represent your country at its best to other countries and other royalty. Thus, the subjects were happy to give money to allow the royals to be a respectable and powerful figurehead.

These days, it seems that nobody gives a stuff any more, and are happy to just live their own lives without worrying too much about anything.

I agree on that.

Now here I don't agree.

The problem was that in order to unify/create a state a powerfull monarch was in need.

If not there was chaos, with the high aristocracy/nobility and perhaps the clergy fighting for power.

The term feudal wars comes from this.

Now wars meant distruction and high taxes on the poor so a monarch, at least temporary, was preferable.

Now around the 15th century to consolidate the monarch power a new old idea comes back "Dei Gratia".

Ever since the times of the ancient egyptian and mesopotamian monarchs the
ruler/monarch seem conected to the divinity.
He(/She) was either the reinacarnation of divinity or it's reprezenative on Earth.

The "Dei Gratia" was the crestain version of this.

The monarch was monarch thru the grace/mercy of God, so to go against a monarch was to go up against/offend God.

Now since most part of history the clergy and nobility-aristocracy (the monarch being its tip of the iceberg) controled the rivers/sources of knowledge/information they basicaly brain-washed the people.

But eventually with progress/secularisation these ideas becamed relics.

Even so people rose against their monarchs when they pushed things too far.

To often these rebelions/revolutions ended in bloodshed witch distanced the people from their monarchs.
An example would be the 1848 revolutions thru Europe.

Then camed the rise of nations witch complicated things even more.

The monarchies that survived were the ones that lost their power.
That or constant bloody represion was the only way to survive.

Really, well english king Charles I and french king Louis XVI lost their heads because of revolutions witch started with taxes.

And the americans rebeled also because of taxes.


That is because education is diferent, secular ideas and progres in information techology changed things.



And now to my ideas.
Well a republic is IMO preferable, but a constitutional-monarchy would be and infinte times better that
a fascist and/or communist dictatorship/regime whatever .

An excellent post Imhotep Evil - and a short history lesson too. (karma for you there )

One of the arguments I often hear from republicans is that you cannot have a classless society with a monarchy, that the sovereign is a symbol of the class system - but this is not actually true. As you inferred in your post Imhotep Evil, the monarch is above the class system - beyond it. The aristocracy are subjects as much as everyone else ...a fact that some of them never really liked very much.

Well thank you.

The monarch vs. aristocracy thing is delicate.

In the middle ages for the monarch the greatest threat were strong noble mens.

The monarch used the wars and religion in their favour.

So what was to be done with the aristocracy/nobility ?!

The solution was the monarch's court.

If they would wish honnors and functions they had to bow to the monarch.

The problem was that the functions were given by rank/bought instead of being given by merit.

Thus the monarchs contributed to the stratification of society.

The artistocrats except for Britain did not pay taxes and restricted from physical labour.

So the only thing to do was indirect taxes and in some cases, tring to create a so called robe aristocracy as opposed to the sword aristocracy.

All didn't solve the real problems.

Ok, I still stand by what I said about the people willing to have a monarch - that was how people were in those days, IMO - but good and detailed post! You're right, and things certainly changed when the monarchs got worse and the people got more educated.

Well, I guess they got sick of being happy giving money


Hmm, well, if you're going that far, then I don't see much difference between a republic and a con-mon anyhow.

But if it matters, then I think we had all best give up any hope of an equal society, monarchy or not. There will never be a classless society.

That sure is true.

Even if there is not an aristocracy, if we look at the US for example, there are powerful families that have huge power. The US is a very interesting country from a sociological perspective, Americans talk about "old money" in a way that Europeans talk about aristocracy - even Bill Gates, with his vast fortune, would never be wholly accepted into America's elite social class - where last names and family connections are of utmost importance. The children of the plutocratic class often have a sense of entitlement, that they have already won life's lottery and were "born to rule"...this can result in arrogance and self-indulgent behavior. Racism also plays a part. Although black Americans are discriminated against, it is Jews who are more often discriminated against by the elite. However, the Jewish community in the US is very powerful, particularly in the areas of the arts, entertainment, banking, and medicine - politically however, they do not hold as much power.