King Juan Carlos to abdicate in favor of his son

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

This article is written by me

King Juan Carlos I of Spain recently announced that he would abdicate in favor of his son Felipe, Prince of Asturias.

The King was born in January 1938 to King Alfonso XIII of Spain's third surviving son Juan. He ascended the throne after the death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco in November 1975. He is a member of the House of Bourbon (Borbón in Spanish), a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty (Capetos in Spanish).

The Capetian dynasty is named after King Hugh Capet of the Franks who reigned France from 987 to 996. The Capetian dynasty succeeded the Carolingian dynasty to rule France from 987 to the establishment of the First Republic in 1793, and ruled the country again from the end of Napoléon I in 1814 or 1815 to the French Revolution of 1848.

The House of Bourbon descended from Count Robert of Clermont, son of King Louis IX of France whose reign was 1226-1270. The House of Bourbon ruled France from the end of the House of Valois, another cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty, in 1589. The first Bourbon king of France was Henry IV but the most famous one was Louis XIV. The House of Bourbon-Orléans, a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon, ruled France from 1830 to 1848.

The House of Bourbon started ruling Spain following the extinction of the male line of the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg (Habsburgo in Spanish) in 1700. The first Bourbon king of Spain was Philip V (Felipe V in Spanish, Philippe V in French), a grandson of King Louis XIV of France and a younger brother of the father of King Louis XV of France. Philip V's grandmother, the first wife of Louis XIV, was a Spanish princess of the House of Habsburg. Despite the war of the Spanish succession from 1701 to 1714, he was still the King of Spain.

6 Bourbon kings reigned Spain from 1700 to 1808
1. King Philip V (Felipe V in Spanish, Philippe V in French) 1700-1724 and 1724-1746
2. King Louis I of Spain (Luis I in Spanish) 1724
3. King Ferdinand VI (Fernando VI in Spanish) 1746-1759
4. King Charles III (Carlos III in Spanish) 1759-1788
5. King Charles IV (Carlos IV in Spanish) 1788-1808
6. King Ferdinand VII (Fernando VII in Spanish) 1808

Napoléon I invaded Spain in 1808 and replaced the Bourbon king with his elder brother Joseph (José in Spanish). The Bourbon started ruling Spain again following the end of Joseph's rule in 1813.

2 Bourbon monarchs reigned Spain from 1813 to 1868
1. King Ferdinand VII (Fernando VII in Spanish) 1813-1833
2. Queen Isabella II (Isabel II in Spanish) 1833-1868

The House of Bourbon was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution of 1868 and replaced with King Amadeo I in 1870, a member of the House of Savoy, the royal family of Sardinia and later Italy. Francisco Serrano served as the Regent of Spain from 1868 to 1870. Amadeo I's reign ended in 1873 and was succeeded by the First Spanish Republic (1873-1874).

The House of Bourbon was reestablished in Spain in December 1874. 2 Bourbon kings reigned Spain from 1874 to 1931
1. King Alfonso XII (Alphonse XII in English and French) 1874-1885
King Alfonso XII was son of Queen Isabella II and Duke Francisco (Francis in English) of Cádiz. Duke Francisco was a grandson of Charles IV of Spain.
2. King Alfonso XIII (Alphonse XIII in English and French) 1886-1931

King Alfonso XIII was deposed in 1931 and replaced with the Second Spanish Republic (1931-1939) and Francisco Franco's regime (1939-1975).

The House of Bourbon was restored in 1975.

The male line of current royal family of the Granduchy of Luxembourg descended from the House of Bourbon of Spain. It means that the House of Bourbon is also the ruling family in Luxembourg. It was once the royal family of the Kingdom of Naples and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in southern Italy as well.

King Juan Carlos is a patrilineal descendant of King Louis XIV of France. He got married with Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark in 1962 when Greece was still a kingdom. King Juan Carlos I's full name in Spanish is Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias.

Prince of Asturias is the title given to the heir apparent to the Spanish throne. The current Prince of Asturias is Felipe (Philip in English and Philippe in French), born in 1968. He is the only son and the third child of King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sophia. His full name in Spanish is Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y de Grecia.

Queen Beatrix abdicated in favor of her 1967-born son King Willem-Alexander in the Netherlands a year ago. And Prince Felipe is going to become the new king of Spain in 2014

 

[dismokemi]

I was really surprised when I read this ealier, never thought King JC would step down.

It will be a tough road ahead for Felipe though, what with the damage to the Royal family's image done by his father and sister, and Spain's current economic situation.

anyways one step closer for Queen Leonor (if the monarchy lasts that long) !!!

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

I was really surprised when I read this ealier, never thought King JC would step down.

It will be a tough road ahead for Felipe though, what with the damage to the Royal family's image done by his father and sister, and Spain's current economic situation.

anyways one step closer for Queen Leonor (if the monarchy lasts that long) !!!

As a king, Prince Felipe will have to solve a lot of challenges.
Not sure if he can have a son someday. If not so, the House of Bourbon may be replaced with another royal family

 

[dismokemi]

As a king, Prince Felipe will have to solve a lot of challenges.
Not sure if he can have a son someday. If not so, the House of Bourbon may be replaced with another royal family

He surely does. I just hope it's not too late by now.

I don't think he and Letizia will have more kid. They are well into their 40s after all. However, as the female can inherit the Spanish throne now, the succession wouldn't be a problem. That is, of course, unless Leonor someday marries another ruling monarch, which in this day and age is nearly impossible.

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

Thousands of people have protested to demand a referendum on the future of Spain's monarchy. They raise the flag of the Second Spanish Republic. Many of them are anti-monarchists who want to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

Should Spain be a monarchy or a republic? I prefer that Spain continue being a Bourbonic monarchy

 

[clh_hilary]

It was a bad move. He is unpopular but an abdication could be used when a crisis has arisen, and now he's lost a 'life line'.

 

[clh_hilary]

As a king, Prince Felipe will have to solve a lot of challenges.
Not sure if he can have a son someday. If not so, the House of Bourbon may be replaced with another royal family

As a constitutional monarch, they do basically nothing. The challenges are not theirs.

If they want the name Bourbon to carry on, they can follow the British lead, which has made 'Windsor' the name forever as far as we know.

 

[clh_hilary]

Should Spain be a monarchy or a republic? I prefer that Spain continue being a Bourbonic monarchy

Why is there a need for any country to have a monarchy now?

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

Why is there a need for any country to have a monarchy now?

Monarchy should not be replaced with republic in every country. The ultimate goal of every political system is to maintain development, freedom, peace and regional integration. To accomplish this goal, some monarchies can do it well but a lot of republics have failed.
A lot of royal families are reigning in very developed or high-income developing countries. Citizens of these countries are living in peace
Europe: Spain, Monaco, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and Sweden
Arab monarchies: Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE (Abu Dhabi and Dubai) and Oman
East and Southeast Asian monarchies: Japan, Brunei and Malaysia (9 royal families).
By contrast, a lot of republics are very poor countries. Wars are taking place in some of them.

If the royal family in Spain are functioning very well, the Spaniards should be grateful to the family and save the monarchy. There will be no need for the establishment of a republic if that republic can not function as successfully as the current monarchy. Spain is a constitutional monarchy and the Prime Minister holds the main powers. Why is there a need to replace a king with a president who has only a few ceremonial roles?

 

[clh_hilary]

Monarchy should not be replaced with republic in every country. The ultimate goal of every political system is to maintain development, freedom, peace and regional integration. To accomplish this goal, some monarchies can do it well but a lot of republics have failed.
A lot of royal families are reigning in very developed or high-income developing countries. Citizens of these countries are living in peace
Europe: Spain, Monaco, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and Sweden
Arab monarchies: Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE (Abu Dhabi and Dubai) and Oman
East and Southeast Asian monarchies: Japan, Brunei and Malaysia (9 royal families).
By contrast, a lot of republics are very poor countries. Wars are taking place in some of them.

If the royal family in Spain are functioning very well, the Spaniards should be grateful to the family and save the monarchy. There will be no need for the establishment of a republic if that republic can not function as successfully as the current monarchy. Spain is a constitutional monarchy and the Prime Minister holds the main powers. Why is there a need to replace a king with a president who has only a few ceremonial roles?

You seem to have no concept of the idea that correlation doesn't lead to causation, let alone the concept of 'statistics' and trends.

By your logic, the United States would be 100 times more developed with a monarch? How did it work out for them when they did have one? How about China? Is modern China more developed or late-Qing China? The United Kingdom would have been as primitive as North Korea without The Queen then? France and Germany may have been able to overtake US as the biggest economic powers had they had their kings in place?

In most places, the existence of a monarch has no relevance whatsoever to the country's actual economic development. Britain actually achieves more with the monarch having less influence. Back in its peak during Queen Victoria, the monarch was already a largely ceremonial one. Have you read the news about Thailand? The Thai King is popular and influential. Guess what the result is? That the prime ministers kept getting kicked out by military force.

You seem to be quite ignorant what constitutional monarchy is. It means the monarch does absolutely nothing but wave at people and kiss babies. Great question you have raised: Why is there a need for a president who has only a few ceremonial roles? So my question to you: Why is there a need for a king who has only a few ceremonial roles?

Regardless, you contradict yourself. Spain is not doing well at all now, so by your logic the monarchy should bear that responsibility.

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

You seem to have no concept of the idea that correlation doesn't lead to causation, let alone the concept of 'statistics' and trends.

By your logic, the United States would be 100 times more developed with a monarch? How did it work out for them when they did have one? How about China? Is modern China more developed or late-Qing China? The United Kingdom would have been as primitive as North Korea without The Queen then? France and Germany may have been able to overtake US as the biggest economic powers had they had their kings in place?

In most places, the existence of a monarch has no relevance whatsoever to the country's actual economic development. Britain actually achieves more with the monarch having less influence. Back in its peak during Queen Victoria, the monarch was already a largely ceremonial one. Have you read the news about Thailand? The Thai King is popular and influential. Guess what the result is? That the prime ministers kept getting kicked out by military force.

You seem to be quite ignorant what constitutional monarchy is. It means the monarch does absolutely nothing but wave at people and kiss babies. Great question you have raised: Why is there a need for a president who has only a few ceremonial roles? So my question to you: Why is there a need for a king who has only a few ceremonial roles?

Regardless, you contradict yourself. Spain is not doing well at all now, so by your logic the monarchy should bear that responsibility.

The world's biggest economic power is the European Union, and the world's biggest national economic power is the United States.

Monarchism and republicanism are not everything to the development of a territory.

The economy of Communist China is more developed than that of the Qing Empire, but the Qing Empire didn't have the conditions and conveniences modern China has. What is a plane, a car or a refrigerator? People in the Qing empire didn't know them. They didn't know today's technologies. A lot of modern Chinese people know them though. They even built a Satellite Launch Center in Inner Mongolia. The emperors of the Qing Empire and all the previous dynasties tried hard but couldn't establish a society as developed as modern China because of the lack of many important technologies. Besides, poor freedom was a serious problem with the development of the Chinese dynasties. A lot of women and low social classes couldn't have the rights to education in the ancient Chinese societies. By contrast, people in the modern society are granted more rights and equalities and it helps modern China develop. The area of the Qing Empire that used to include Taiwan, modern Mongolia and the southeastern part of Russia and more developed than that of the People's Republic of China.

We can not make sure that France and Germany will overtake the United States as the biggest national economic powers if they are reigned by kings or emperors. The United States is much larger and more populous. The country didn't undergo any world war but France, Germany and most of European states underwent both world wars. The law of the United States welcomes a lot of talented immigrants and they will help the union develop after naturalizing as Americans. German nationality law doesn't welcome them and requires ordinary resident in Germany for at least 8 years though. The United States is more developed because of these conveniences.

It is very possible that the United Kingdom in the reign of Queen of Victoria and the House of Hanover used to be the world's biggest economic power. The British Empire controlled the largest land ever. It is even larger than the Mongol Empire. By contrast, nowadays the United Kingdom is ranked sixth by GDP after the United States, mainland China, Japan, Germany and France.

King Rama IX is just a spiritual figure in Thailand. He couldn't stop the army's intervention. The Thai and Siamese kings have lost their de facto powers since the Coup d'état of June 1933. The real powers are held by the army and the main political parties.

Constitutional monarchy and republic are just political systems. The success of a political system depends on its leaders and its laws.

There were good and bad monarchs in the history of the Chinese empires. Emperors Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong of the Qing, emperors Hongwu and Yongle of the Ming, Genghis Khan and emperor Shizu Kublai Khan of the Yuan, emperor Taizu of the Northern Song, emperors Gaozu, Taizu and Xuanzong of the Tang, emperor Wen of the Sui, emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou, emperor Mingyuan of the Northern Wei, emperors Guangwu, Ming and Zhang of the Eastern Han, emperors Gaozu, Wen, Jing, Wu and Zhao of the Western Han, emperor Shi Huangdi of the Qin and kings Wu, Cheng and Kang of the Zhou are considered talented monarchs who reigned a prosperous China. Emperor Xiao Baojuan of the Southern Qi and emperors Liu Shao and Liu Ziye of the Liu Song are considered disastrous ones.

There are not many differences between constitutional monarchy and parliamentary constitutional republic. Though the monarch or the president is the head of state, the main powers are held by the Prime Minister. However, a monarch should be preferred to a president. Both have only a few ceremonial roles but the royal family is a part of the long history. Why do we have to spend time voting to select a ceremonial president? In a constitutional monarchy, we don't have to waste time voting because we have the monarch help us take the ceremonial role, but in a constitutional republic, we may have to spend months debating on the candidates for this role.

What has happened in Italy and Greece since their royal families were ousted from powers? A lot of Italian governments have come and gone since the end of the reign of the House of Savoy in 1946. Many of them lasted for several months. Greece, or the Hellenic Republic, abolished its monarch in 1973 but the country is facing the government-debt crisis now. Replacing a monarchy with a republic does not mean that you will have a more prosperous country.

 

[clh_hilary]

The world's biggest economic power is the European Union, and the world's biggest national economic power is the United States.

Debating but irrelevant remark.

Monarchism and republicanism are not everything to the development of a territory.

Then what point exactly have you been trying to make?

The economy of Communist China is more developed than that of the Qing Empire, but the Qing Empire didn't have the conditions and conveniences modern China has. What is a plane, a car or a refrigerator? People in the Qing empire didn't know them. They didn't know today's technologies. A lot of modern Chinese people know them though. They even built a Satellite Launch Center in Inner Mongolia. The emperors of the Qing Empire and all the previous dynasties tried hard but couldn't establish a society as developed as modern China because of the lack of many important technologies.

So in what way did the monarch help or not having a monarch harm?

Besides, poor freedom was a serious problem with the development of the Chinese dynasties. A lot of women and low social classes couldn't have the rights to education in the ancient Chinese societies.

Something reinforced by the Manchurian monarchy.

By contrast, people in the modern society are granted more rights and equalities and it helps modern China develop. The area of the Qing Empire that used to include Taiwan, modern Mongolia and the southeastern part of Russia and more developed than that of the People's Republic of China.

Modern Mongolia and the southeastern part of Russia are not more developed than most part of the PRC. Taiwan is not more developed than the major cities of the PRC.

Regardless, none of those places have a monarch in place. What point are you trying to make?

We can not make sure that France and Germany will overtake the United States as the biggest national economic powers if they are reigned by kings or emperors. The United States is much larger and more populous. The country didn't undergo any world war but France, Germany and most of European states underwent both world wars. The law of the United States welcomes a lot of talented immigrants and they will help the union develop after naturalizing as Americans. German nationality law doesn't welcome them and requires ordinary resident in Germany for at least 8 years though. The United States is more developed because of these conveniences.

So you are admitting that you are being silly to suggest that having a monarch would lead to massive economic development?

It is very possible that the United Kingdom in the reign of Queen of Victoria and the House of Hanover used to be the world's biggest economic power.

Britain has a monarch since ever but it's only risen to that point when the monarchy fades. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King Charles I, King James II, etc all asserted an absolute rule. How did that work out for the social 'stability' for their subjects?

The British Empire controlled the largest land ever. It is even larger than the Mongol Empire. By contrast, nowadays the United Kingdom is ranked sixth by GDP after the United States, mainland China, Japan, Germany and France.

So the monarch helped in what way?

King Rama IX is just a spiritual figure in Thailand. He couldn't stop the army's intervention. The Thai and Siamese kings have lost their de facto powers since the Coup d'état of June 1933. The real powers are held by the army and the main political parties.

The Thai King does not have actual power, but he is influential. Nobody who knows anything about international relations would dispute with that fact.

Also, the point is that you are incorrect for saying that having a monarch lead to economic development or stability or whatever. The existence of the Thai monarchy did not prevent that.

Constitutional monarchy and republic are just political systems. The success of a political system depends on its leaders and its laws.

The point of a constitutional monarch is that they do not do anything. The success and failure of their country have little to no relevance to themselves.

There were good and bad monarchs in the history of the Chinese empires. Emperors Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong of the Qing, emperors Hongwu and Yongle of the Ming, Genghis Khan and emperor Shizu Kublai Khan of the Yuan, emperor Taizu of the Northern Song, emperors Gaozu, Taizu and Xuanzong of the Tang, emperor Wen of the Sui, emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou, emperor Mingyuan of the Northern Wei, emperors Guangwu, Ming and Zhang of the Eastern Han, emperors Gaozu, Wen, Jing, Wu and Zhao of the Western Han, emperor Shi Huangdi of the Qin and kings Wu, Cheng and Kang of the Zhou are considered talented monarchs who reigned a prosperous China. Emperor Xiao Baojuan of the Southern Qi and emperors Liu Shao and Liu Ziye of the Liu Song are considered disastrous ones.

I read history at Cambridge and HKU, so thank you for this very valuable history lesson.

There are not many differences between constitutional monarchy and parliamentary constitutional republic.

Except they don't actually have to place a president in a republic, and ever if they do, a president would still cost a lot less than what a monarch would.

Though the monarch or the president is the head of state, the main powers are held by the Prime Minister. However, a monarch should be preferred to a president. Both have only a few ceremonial roles but the royal family is a part of the long history.

'History' is a ridiculously silly argument. When did Spain start having a king on its own? The last time I check they were a part of the Roman Empire first and foremost and was under the rule of the Roman Emperor. Shouldn't they be, then, installing that?

Or, if you argue that that house has gone extinct. What about the pontiff? Historically the pope was considered a higher power than the monarchs even on earth (then of course there was also the Holy Roman Emperor above everybody else), and the Holy See still exists. Why shouldn't Spain get Pope Francis, King of Vatican as their rightful monarch?

Why do we have to spend time voting to select a ceremonial president?

We don't have to. Many republics don't even have a ceremonial president and they work just fine.

In a constitutional monarchy, we don't have to waste time voting because we have the monarch help us take the ceremonial role, but in a constitutional republic, we may have to spend months debating on the candidates for this role.

Why do we have to spend lots of money to maintain the monarchy however?

What has happened in Italy and Greece since their royal families were ousted from powers? A lot of Italian governments have come and gone since the end of the reign of the House of Savoy in 1946. Many of them lasted for several months. Greece, or the Hellenic Republic, abolished its monarch in 1973 but the country is facing the government-debt crisis now. Replacing a monarchy with a republic does not mean that you will have a more prosperous country.

You're twisting the point - I've never said doing away a monarch gives you automatically a more prosperous country. But having a monarch doesn't give you one either. Having a monarch is irrelevant to the economy of a country for the most part.

Do you even remember why the Italian King was gone? Do you know about the Second World War and the King of Italy's role in it perhaps?

Oh, how about the King of Greece? Was it all peaceful and well when he got overthrown?

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

Debating but irrelevant remark.

The European Union is ranked above the United States by GDP on the IMF, the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook's lists, therefore it's the world's No.1 economy

Then what point exactly have you been trying to make?

The political system is not everything that determines the success and failure of a country

So in what way did the monarch help or not having a monarch harm?

In this passage I meant that the Qing emperors could not make their empire as prosperous as modern China because of the lack of advanced technologies. The Qing Empire could have been richer if modern technologies had been invented at its time. Even if a Qing emperor is more talented than a modern Chinese leader, he can not compete with the modern leader without technologies

The economy of Communist China is more developed than that of the Qing Empire, but the Qing Empire didn't have the conditions and conveniences modern China has. What is a plane, a car or a refrigerator? People in the Qing empire didn't know them. They didn't know today's technologies. A lot of modern Chinese people know them though. They even built a Satellite Launch Center in Inner Mongolia. The emperors of the Qing Empire and all the previous dynasties tried hard but couldn't establish a society as developed as modern China because of the lack of many important technologies.

Something reinforced by the Manchurian monarchy.

If the Qing Emperors had granted women and low social classes more rights and equalities, they could have had a chance to maintain their empire

Modern Mongolia and the southeastern part of Russia are not more developed than most part of the PRC. Taiwan is not more developed than the major cities of the PRC.

Regardless, none of those places have a monarch in place. What point are you trying to make?

In my sentence about these territories, I meant that though the economy of the Qing empire was not so big as that of modern China, the empire was more successful in controlling a larger territory. It should have been written as a separate passage. Sorry for an irrelevant sentence

So you are admitting that you are being silly to suggest that having a monarch would lead to massive economic development?

Besides the passage about the Qing Empire and modern China, the passage about France, Germany and the United States is another example to prove that the political system is not everything that determines the success and failure of a country.

The world wars, the laws, the populations and the total areas of land are difficulties that don't allow France and Germany's economies to reach the United States' economy

Britain has a monarch since ever but it's only risen to that point when the monarchy fades. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King Charles I, King James II, etc all asserted an absolute rule. How did that work out for the social 'stability' for their subjects?

These ancient monarchs could not have a prosperous kingdom like Queen Victoria's one because they didn't know advanced technologies

So the monarch helped in what way?

I meant that the United Kingdom in the reign of Queen Victoria used to be the world's No.1 economic power but now many states have passed it. The monarch didn't help much

The British Empire controlled the largest land ever. It is even larger than the Mongol Empire. By contrast, nowadays the United Kingdom is ranked sixth by GDP after the United States, mainland China, Japan, Germany and France.

The Thai King does not have actual power, but he is influential. Nobody who knows anything about international relations would dispute with that fact.

Also, the point is that you are incorrect for saying that having a monarch lead to economic development or stability or whatever. The existence of the Thai monarchy did not prevent that.

Having a monarch does not lead to economic development if the monarch is not talented. It depends on who the monarch is

The point of a constitutional monarch is that they do not do anything. The success and failure of their country have little to no relevance to themselves.

The constitutional monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of his national armed forces, for example, Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is the Commander-in-Chief of the Danish Defence, King Mohamed VI of Morocco is the Supreme Commander and Chief-of-Staff of the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces, etc.

The monarch does not lead to the success of the economy as you have said, but he can call for the stability of the whole country

I read history at Cambridge and HKU, so thank you for this very valuable history lesson.

You are welcome. I prefer the history of the ancient dynasties to that of the modern world. Not sure if Hong Kongers are taught a Hong Kongese history besides Chinese one

Except they don't actually have to place a president in a republic, and ever if they do, a president would still cost a lot less than what a monarch would.

If the monarch deserves to receive a large amount of money, he should receive it. Money is not everything. A monarch more influential than a ceremonial president

'History' is a ridiculously silly argument. When did Spain start having a king on its own? The last time I check they were a part of the Roman Empire first and foremost and was under the rule of the Roman Emperor. Shouldn't they be, then, installing that?

Or, if you argue that that house has gone extinct. What about the pontiff? Historically the pope was considered a higher power than the monarchs even on earth (then of course there was also the Holy Roman Emperor above everybody else), and the Holy See still exists. Why shouldn't Spain get Pope Francis, King of Vatican as their rightful monarch?

No, Spain and the Roman Empire are different. They are 2 independent entities. The Western Roman Empire had ended before Spain was established. Moreover, many Roman emperors were elected. Spain started having a monarch on its own at the end of the Reconquista. The marriage of Isabel I of Castile and Fernando II of Aragon led to the unification of Spain. The royal Spanish families by paternal or maternal lineage have succeeded them to reign Spain up to now. It means that the Roman emperors were not the monarchs of Spain and the history of Spanish monarchs started at the time of the Reconquista.

Do you know the history of Greek monarchs? Greece has a long history but the history of Greek monarchs started in 1832.

How about the history of Jordanian monarchs? Jordan was ruled by the monarchs of many powerful empires but the history of Jordanian monarchs started in 1921

We don't have to. Many republics don't even have a ceremonial president and they work just fine.

These republics are not parliamentary republics (e.g Italy, Germany) but presidential republics (e.g the United States, Brazil, Panama) or semi-presidential presidential republics (e.g, France, Russia)

Why do we have to spend lots of money to maintain the monarchy however?

Money is not everything. We don't have to waste time debating on the candidates for a ceremonial role. If spending money can keep us away from debating, we should do it.

You're twisting the point - I've never said doing away a monarch gives you automatically a more prosperous country. But having a monarch doesn't give you one either. Having a monarch is irrelevant to the economy of a country for the most part.

Monarch is not very irrelevant to the economy but the peace, stability and the ceremony of the country

Do you even remember why the Italian King was gone? Do you know about the Second World War and the King of Italy's role in it perhaps?

Oh, how about the King of Greece? Was it all peaceful and well when he got overthrown?

The king who reigned Italy in the Second World War was Victor Emmanuel III but the last king was his son, Umberto II. They were 2 different kings. King Umberto II abdicated after the constitutional referendum in 1946, but 45.7% of the valid votes wanted to maintain the monarchy.

The last king of Greece is Constantine II who is still alive. He started reigning in 1964 but his country underwent a civil war from 1946 to 1949. His policies could not solve the difficult situation of Greece

 

[IdolCarrieAlwaysShines]

How about China? Is modern China more developed or late-Qing China?

If I could go back to the period from 14th to 19th centuries to be the emperor of the Ming or Qing empires, I would use these policies to make the empire develop like modern China
- Applying modern technologies
- Granting women and low social classes the rights to education and politics
- Replacing farms and farmers with universities, companies, researchers and financiers
- Creating trace centers and urbanizing
- Creating a union with neighbor countries to integrate the region
- Dissolving feudalism but maintaining absolute monarchism. No family, but the imperial family, would have the right to inherit at the office
- Converting the empire into a federation to solve the issues among ethnic groups. The governor of each federal entity would be a member of the imperial family
- Replacing Confucian education with a more advanced one
- Creating a government where the emperor would function as the head of government and the ministers would be talents selected from the whole empire
- Allowing no political party to form but permitting people to vote to select the next emperor among the emperor's sons
- Recognizing the emperor as the owner of every land and wealth in the empire and the main creator of the constitution and laws
- Teaching people to trust in the emperor

These policies will help the society of the empire develop and the absolute monarch to reign stably at the same time

 

[clh_hilary]

If I could go back to the period from 14th to 19th centuries to be the emperor of the Ming or Qing empires, I would use these policies to make the empire develop like modern China
- Applying modern technologies
- Granting women and low social classes the rights to education and politics
- Replacing farms and farmers with universities, companies, researchers and financiers
- Creating trace centers and urbanizing
- Creating a union with neighbor countries to integrate the region
- Dissolving feudalism but maintaining absolute monarchism. No family, but the imperial family, would have the right to inherit at the office
- Converting the empire into a federation to solve the issues among ethnic groups. The governor of each federal entity would be a member of the imperial family
- Replacing Confucian education with a more advanced one
- Creating a government where the emperor would function as the head of government and the ministers would be talents selected from the whole empire
- Allowing no political party to form but permitting people to vote to select the next emperor among the emperor's sons
- Recognizing the emperor as the owner of every land and wealth in the empire and the main creator of the constitution and laws
- Teaching people to trust in the emperor

These policies will help the society of the empire develop and the absolute monarch to reign stably at the same time

Absolutely irrelevant. So what role would the monarch have in developing the nation?

I will just type this again:

Why do we need a monarch? That having them would not harm the country is not a reason.

 

[clh_hilary]

The political system is not everything that determines the success and failure of a country

So why have a monarch at all?

In this passage I meant that the Qing emperors could not make their empire as prosperous as modern China because of the lack of advanced technologies. The Qing Empire could have been richer if modern technologies had been invented at its time. Even if a Qing emperor is more talented than a modern Chinese leader, he can not compete with the modern leader without technologies

So why have a monarch at all?

If the Qing Emperors had granted women and low social classes more rights and equalities, they could have had a chance to maintain their empire

No, that wouldn't have helped. Perhaps you should've studied history harder. And regardless, the monarch didn't manage to save anyone, anything, so:

So why have a monarch at all?

Besides the passage about the Qing Empire and modern China, the passage about France, Germany and the United States is another example to prove that the political system is not everything that determines the success and failure of a country.

So why have a monarch at all?

The world wars, the laws, the populations and the total areas of land are difficulties that don't allow France and Germany's economies to reach the United States' economy

So why have a monarch at all?

These ancient monarchs could not have a prosperous kingdom like Queen Victoria's one because they didn't know advanced technologies

So why have a monarch at all?

I meant that the United Kingdom in the reign of Queen Victoria used to be the world's No.1 economic power but now many states have passed it. The monarch didn't help much

So why have a monarch at all?

Having a monarch does not lead to economic development if the monarch is not talented. It depends on who the monarch is

So why have a monarch at all? And in a constitutional monarch, the monarch has no actual power.

The constitutional monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of his national armed forces, for example, Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is the Commander-in-Chief of the Danish Defence, King Mohamed VI of Morocco is the Supreme Commander and Chief-of-Staff of the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces, etc.

The monarch does not lead to the success of the economy as you have said, but he can call for the stability of the whole country

When was the last time any of these monarchs actually use their technical power to do anything? Never. They cannot do anything. HM Queen Elizabeth II can command the troop the same way she can command god by being the supreme-governor of The Church of England and the 'Defender of the Faith'.

You are welcome. I prefer the history of the ancient dynasties to that of the modern world. Not sure if Hong Kongers are taught a Hong Kongese history besides Chinese one

I read history at University of Cambridge (No 1 in history globally) and both Hong Kong and Chinese histories at University of Hong Kong (Top 30 world-wide, No 1 in Asia-Pacific). But I also studied both world and Chinese histories at a-levels.

It seems the sarcasm has lost in translation, so I'd just say it directly: I do not need any history lesson from you especially when you seem to be quite ignorant about international relations and only have a superficial understanding of the actual histories of things.

If the monarch deserves to receive a large amount of money, he should receive it. Money is not everything. A monarch more influential than a ceremonial president

'Deserve'. In what way do they 'deserve' the money for doing nothing? They are influential only for being in that position, being born out of the right vagina and continued to breathe.

No, Spain and the Roman Empire are different. They are 2 independent entities. The Western Roman Empire had ended before Spain was established. Moreover, many Roman emperors were elected. Spain started having a monarch on its own at the end of the Reconquista. The marriage of Isabel I of Castile and Fernando II of Aragon led to the unification of Spain. The royal Spanish families by paternal or maternal lineage have succeeded them to reign Spain up to now. It means that the Roman emperors were not the monarchs of Spain and the history of Spanish monarchs started at the time of the Reconquista.

But historically, traditionally Spain was not an independent country and was ruled by Roman Emperors and had always been under the control of the Pope. So if your only argument for having a monarch is because it's historical, why do we stop there? Not to mention the current monarchy started in 1979.

Why count it when Spain got 'unified'? Why don't we see Europe as a big country which has yet to be unified as either the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire?

Do you know the history of Greek monarchs? Greece has a long history but the history of Greek monarchs started in 1832.

You've completed misunderstood it. The reason why Greece got rid of their monarch was because it was awful. In what way would keeping it have been better for it? And more specifically, to prevent the debt crisis?

Why have a monarch at all?

These republics are not parliamentary republics (e.g Italy, Germany) but presidential republics (e.g the United States, Brazil, Panama) or semi-presidential presidential republics (e.g, France, Russia)

So ****ing what? That doesn't mean there has to be ceremonial president without a monarch.

Money is not everything. We don't have to waste time debating on the candidates for a ceremonial role. If spending money can keep us away from debating, we should do it.

I repeat: There isn't a need for a ceremonial president. You keep saying as if I said there should be a president instead of a monarch. No, I've NEVER said that. I said there isn't need for a ceremonial president.

Monarch is not very irrelevant to the economy but the peace, stability and the ceremony of the country

Apart from the 'ceremony' of the country (which doesn't make sense in English), a constitutional monarch has absolutely nothing to do with the 'peace' or 'stability' of the country. I already have pointed out Thailand as an example. And countries like the UK is not more 'stable' with a monarch - if it does, there wouldn't be a referendum on Scottish independence when Liz II would still be the head of state of both either way.

The king who reigned Italy in the Second World War was Victor Emmanuel III but the last king was his son, Umberto II. They were 2 different kings. King Umberto II abdicated after the constitutional referendum in 1946, but 45.7% of the valid votes wanted to maintain the monarchy.

I know. I read history at Cambridge University. Umberto II needed to abdicated only due to his father, he's irrelevant. His father let the fascists get into power. So much for peace and stability for the country, huh?

None of your posts contributed to your argument: You need to establish arguments to justify having a monarch, not just to say that having a monarch doesn't hurt.