Would you rather live in a monarchy or a republic?

Question

I agree with november rain.

Answer 1

Monarchy.

Answer 2

republic!!!! the monarchy dont do anything, live on our hard earned money, live in luxury and do nothing!!!!!!!! what is the point of them!!!!!

Answer 3

A constitutional monarchy as we have in Britain.

Answer 4

Republic. Why should we continue to be denied our democratic right to choose our head of state?

www.republic.org.uk

Answer 5

A Republic.

The fawning brown-nose tag alongs attached to Monarchy

is obscene. Who owes the parasites a living anyway?

Answer 6

Constitutional monarchy - republics absolutely suck.

Why pay for the upkeep of current and former presidents and their families - this all costs MUCH more than a monarchy!

Answer 7

Republic.  The only need for monarchy in a modern society is for traditional ceremony. Most modern European countries had monarchies and are now working fine without them.

Answer 8

Monarchy. No doubt.

Answer 9

im princess, ilike to say you republic is better than & justice ina republic regime , in monarchy is discrimination.

Answer 10

i am happy living in a democratic republic (India)

monarchy in my opinion is not at all beneficial to the ppl. they have limited rights , limited freedom and restrictions. Nepal just dethroned its king...obviously it wasn't happy

Answer 11

I'd live in monarchy, as long as I'm the monarch! haha

But seriously, democracy is an illusion of freedom. I'd rather live under a tyrant who makes the right choices and gets things done, as opposed to a joke that many democratic countries are turning into now.

Answer 12

Republic, more free will. Plus it sounds better in a name. The .. Republic or The Republic of..

Answer 13

Monarchy a change to a republic has nearly always led to bloodshed unless it is done by way of gradual develpment.

I don't want a change in England anyway because this lot of hard of selectively deaf and stupid people in power could not organise a p**s up in a brewery

Answer 14

Republic.    Your head of state may still be other than you would ideally prefer.........................but at least you get a choice in the matter.

Answer 15

In Australia we have had a Federal Government dismissed by the Queens rep here and right or wrong it is a safety valve that I am in agreement with . I will not vote for a republic here as our constitution was set up in a time when the men running our country had a decent set of moral values there was very little of the to days norm of whats in for me and my mob .I have no trouble with a head of state so far removed that he or she would only act  in  extreme circumstances~~

Answer 16

A constitutional monarchy....

Still get the pomp and ceremony of a monarchy... with an elected government...

But also the oversight, where the monarch can dismiss the government if it really becomes necessary. (I could not imagine it ever happening...but its nice to know that its there.)

Answer 17

definitely republic..  i don't think monarchs are of higher status than ordinary people.. they are just like any of us, having "honorific designations".. or whatever you called that..

i don't see the significance of them in recent times other than for chic ceremonial purposes.. come on, this ain't the medieval times..

Answer 18

monarchy just look at the republics who end up with dictators, we have a government we can change if its not working and we a history that gives our country a stability and sense of pride . Long live the Queen

Answer 19

Constitutional Monarchy for me, thanks.  Our Queen was born to do her job and trained to do it from infancy.  Can't get a better person for the job than that!  Family run firms are just the same.

One look at the likes of George Dubya Bush makes me  VERY scared of any sort of Presidential system.

Our system works well.  Politicians are scum at the best of time and putting one in a position of ultimate power is not a good idea.  At least we know that if any of our PMs ever got too big for their boots the Queen could (theoretically) step in.

And as for those who think its "unfair someone should rule a country because of the family they were born into" - well that never happens with a Presidential system eh? HELLO!  George Bush "inheriting" his position from Daddy? Hillary trying to step in her hubby's former shoes?  In any Presidential system, the theory of a poor man becoming President will always stay that - just a theory.  In reality its money and connections which talk.

Answer 20

Republic, I see no need for a monarchy, this isn't the middle ages.

Answer 21

republic. why should someone be head of state just because of the family they where born into. they probably have we webed feet because they breed amongst themselves anyway.

Answer 22

I am quite happy with a constituional monarchy.  if we did have a Republic, we would still have to have a head of state, and I doubt they would be any better than a monarchy.  Why do you think a republic would be better?

Answer 23

I would rather live in a monarchy with the pomp and ceremony of royalty rather than a boring republic since it's nothing special. Just because a person is elected as head of a country doesn't mean it's better than a system where a person was born to be head of a country and trained for the role since birth.....

Answer 24

Republics organized into trading unions. We cannot give up self determination and the sovereignty of the common folk. Change is always good but regression can only harm society. Individual states may eventually become less important than cooperative financial endeavors. Problem is, corporations aren't based on democratic ideals, but could become more powerful than countries someday. Especially since risking large sums with space exploration, and the potential returns, is something governments don't seem that interested in anymore. Exploration leads to trade or just trade goods. Trade leads to wealth building. Increased wealth leads to innovation, prosperity, and fertility.

Answer 25

A cinstitutional Monarchy.

Victor,we don't pay for a large extended family

Answer 26

I lived few years in the UK, 9 years in South America and 22 years in USA.

I don't think just 4 years in the UK is enough for me to speak out of personal experience. But I must confess I asked myself that same question over and over in those 4 years: monarchy or republic?

Among the people I met there, I noticed that those who complained about the monarchy and stated they would move to the US if they could, were unhappy and angry inside (no matter were they lived). Most of the people I met were very proud of the monarchy.

The royal family is usually accused of being  useless and opulent. Have we paid attention to the American politicians ? are they really useful? Do we think they are not as rich ? They just tend to hide their wealth, but that's not being modest or honest, they are just hypocrites.

Hey, in Argentina (were I lived for 8 years), even after the Falkland Islands conflict, I used to hear this comment (all the time):

"I wished we lost the English invasions in 1812, we could have become part of the Commonwealth and perhaps be more financially stable now".

Answer 27

It makes no difference whether you live in a republic or constitutional monarchy these days. I'd rather have an apolitical Head of State than another Politician.

Answer 28

Republic ..... or social democracy really would be ideal.

Answer 29

I live in a constitutional monarchy (Canada) and travel in the Commonwealth as well as to republics (USA, Iceland, Ireland, France, Germany). I find a softer attitude in a monarchy. You always feel you have a final arbitor of a dispute with a monarch. She/he can't resolve the issue, but can ask ministries to revisit the situation.

I also agree with the person who said they liked having an apolitical head of state. I believe it elevates the nation when you have someone who can't be corrupted by a lust for power or wealth.

As for the person who thinks it's all about titles and honorifics, I find it amusing that in the great republic of the USA, people keep their titles when they leave office. So ex-presidents are still addressed as "President Clinton". Retired ambassadors are still referred to as Ambassador Smith. Senators after they leave office, are still addressed as Senator Smith. Generals and other officers still keep their rank. Why?

Answer 30

Have you ever had a look at little Switerland?  no other country ever invades them, their President can not take the country to war.  Almost everyone owns a gun, yet the crime rate is way down, their army is small, but if they are attacked then every one becomes a soldier and defends their country.  all the counties around them have been to war, but they are never bothered, we could do with some of what they have.