Do you think there is a role for monarchies in this day and age?

© Japan Today

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Not really. Possibly as a tourist gimmick in places like the UK but it's basically an archaic and irrelevant system, funded by the people.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Agree with Heretic. I think that its time to resign monarchies to history.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Yes, on humanitarian issues and as symbols. Not in government, and they don't really deserve all the money they get to exist.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Now they are overpaid actors with a lot of inherited wealth. They are entertaining in Britain especially, along with Coronation Street. Monarchs tend to live in golden cages. They might well want to trade their wealth for more freedom. All that said, they are figureheads, used for good or for ill by the real powers.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Where there's fabulous wealth there's power and influence.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

They are entertaining in Britain especially, along with Coronation Street.

In Britain, they’ve long been part of the cringeworthy celeb culture and Markle is a flood of b-list celeb adrenaline into the system. The UK needs to grow out of this nonsense. However, it is difficult to make sweeping statements about monarchies across the world. They serve different functions and occupy different places in different cultures and gobble up different amounts of cash.

I just struggle with the idea of inherited titles. It can’t be a good idea.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Japanese people are continually amazed at how little I know about the Royal family. Sorry, but I'm just not interested. It's too complicated for me. "The queen is just a figurehead?" I don't think so. She owns HUGE tracts of prime real estate. Her actual wealth is a state secret. Just on the accident of birth.

Outmoded? Certainly. Puppet leaders are the norm these days, compared to that, I'd rather have a return to monarchy.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

The richest welfare recipients in the world. Kick them to the curb and use the taxes on REAL people.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Way over due to shed the U.K. of this king system. So tacky on many levels these days. And what an evil history of Bri'ish kings. That country would be much better off without them tax suckers.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Reading Edward St Aubyn's Patrick Melrose novels finally and firmly turned me off titled people and the inherited power and status they have for too long been entitled to.

The lives of kings and queens, plus tales of palace intrigues do make good material for cartoons and costume dramas, however.

But the idea of the public paying for their lifestyles because their ancestors were the most brutal of the most brutal (and they were) seems a bit off in the 21st century.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes, there is always space for some theater and distraction as well.

Would never like to be within one though.

Anyway, if no monarchy of course people would find something or somebody else to take the place of that kind of institution. Look at the crap about タレント that goes on in Japan, and there is a monarch here though a bit more withdrawn than the British one.

Celebrity gossip anyone?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes. Like it or not, monarchies in Europe, Japan, Thailand, Buthan, are alive and well and many people draw meaning from it, identify with it, and they play symbolic roles.

There is an argument for having a unifying symbol of a nation that is not part of the political game. Look at what can happen without it: in the United States, first one half of the people say "this is not my president (Obama)" and after elections, the other half (Trump), both saying "he does not represent me or my country."

In Japan, the monarchy of course had an influence on the war, but the current emperor has worked tirelessly to make relations with neighboring countries better and apologize for the war.

On the other hand, it may not be such a good thing to have your national symbol drowned in gold and money, living in extravagant palaces, as in Saudi Arabia.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm against monarchies in principle, but in countries without stable democratic institutions, there's a chance that a decent monarchy can play a positive role.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Thai king actually stopped a civil war just by saying he didn’t want it. (Or a coup, I forget which.) As Ishiwara has may have stated, some countries need a unifying figurehead to keep them out of the swamps their politicians build and maintain (like the US).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Funnily enough, in some countries like France which got rid of their monarchy, there is a yearning and fascination with royalty, and much reflection about 'what if'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, maybe add Russia and the USA to the list.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think it's interesting that countries that are often considered among the most stable and progressive (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium) still have monarchies. Is it perhaps because, although they think they are an anachronism, they can't think of a better replacement? Do you go for a head of state with executive powers (USA, France, etc.)? No thanks, many would say. Or do you vote for a titular head of state with no or very little authority (like Ireland). Some might say that would be like X-Factor, and therefore worse than the current situation.

I've never been a supporter of monarchies, but I also don't see them as a big concern as long as they don't have any real powers.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It depends of what monarchies we are talking about. For instance the Japanese monarchy is a respectful one but the British and the Spaniard monarchies are really a shame.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think that there is still a role, after all, the monarch is Head of State.

Although, I often wonder why the Japanese monarch is referred to as Emperor. Japan does not have an Empire.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Of course. Certain countries can bond beyond friendship with Royal marriages etc. Although this is not that revered these days, it still serves as a reminder of how Royal families have actually prevented countless of devestating wars in the past.

Royal families have and will always play a role in world society. People need someone to gather around, someone to feel unity for etc. A King, an Emperor, Shah, Sheik, Sultan, is essential to fullfill this state.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I think I like the idea of having 4 branches of government - legislative, judicial, executive, symbolic/ceremonial/cultural, whatever you want to call it. So the monarchy performs that symbolic role. The U.K is a good example.

New Russell Brand/Jordan Peterson video talks about this issue very briefly and what is potentially a danger in the U.S. system - ie, family dynasties (Clintons/Bush) creating a King like figure, but one with executive power and the ability to push for legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLFQxVOvan4 - Skip to 1 hour, 25 mins.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I must have been killed by a monarch in a past life because I have a slightly unnatural visceral anger when it comes to the absurdity of monarchy and I have a hard time respecting people who drool over them. The coverage of the wedding here in the US made me want to vomit. And seeing all the watch parties made me want to punch the attendees, then vomit.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes. They’re great. God save the Queen.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites