Royalty - History till Present

[Coffeehouse]

I was looking at economic prosperity in Wiki, and under GDP per capita, the most common measurement of the average level of wealth of a nation's inhabitants, I was struck by the fact that, if you f.ex. look at the ranking compiled by the IMF for 2008 (latest ranking), 5 of the 10 top spots, and 3 of the top 3, are Kingdoms (by some definition or another). (In fact if you take away Iceland from the list, they won't be anywhere near top 10 for the 2009 or 2010 ranking...), and replace it with 11th place Kuwait, you get 6 out of the top 10. I.e. 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in terms of level of income of their inhabitants are hereditary kingdoms...!

1 Qatar $86,008 - Head of State: Emir
2 Luxembourg $82,441 - Head of State: Grand Duke
3 Norway $53,738 - Head of State: King
4 Singapore $51,226 - Republic
5 Brunei $50,199 - Head of State: Sultan
6 United States $47,440 - Republic
7 Switzerland $43,196 - Republic
8 Ireland $42,110 - Republic
9 Netherlands $40,558 - Head of State: Queen
10 Iceland $40,471 - Republic
11 Kuwait $39,915 - Head of State: Emir

What gives

-------------------------

This thread can be used for discussion about any history concerning any type of other royal state, government, etc. throughout history.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

:
:
What gives
:
:
[/B]

I suppose - as long as things keep going well economically - the hereditary family is able to keep their throne. But once things go sour, heads will roll!

[Earniel]

Pure coincedence, I think. Even if two nations have a king, or a similar hereditary ruler, the structure and thus the economic situation can be vastly different. I don't think Qatar would be on top without the oil, for instance. A king can still ruin his country just as easily as a president or a tyrant.

I've heard the argument from royalists that monarchy brings stability, and thus a better economic climate. I'm not convinced. But a monarchy can be an economic asset. Just the idea of royality can open doors that would otherwise remain closed. People still find it difficult not to look up to someone with a royal title. One of the reasons, I reckon our crownprince gets put at the head of international trade missions.

[GrayMouser]

This is just Gwaimir bait

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You know me too well, GM.

Earniel is probably right; Qatar and Kuwait doubtless have weighted results from obscenely wealthy owners of oil wells etc. I understand that Luxembourg is an economically prosperous and highly successful tourist destination; its small size and population could conceivably limit poverty, as well.

But that said, there ARE still 5/6 out of 10 that are monarchies...Note also that Iceland is a representative democracy.

I've heard the argument from royalists that monarchy brings stability, and thus a better economic climate. I'm not convinced.

Oh, you're just jealous Belgium didn't make the list. Seriously, though, I think that your proposal of the effects of monarchy is pretty similar to idea of promoting stability; it's just more of a external factor, whereas the stability is an internal factor.

Even if two nations have a king, or a similar hereditary ruler, the structure and thus the economic situation can be vastly different.

True enough. But, perhaps a more pertinent question would be what would happen if, hypothetically, you took two otherwise identical countries, and established a monarchy in one and a democracy or republic in the other.

A king can still ruin his country just as easily as a president or a tyrant.

Except that kings, for the most part, are puppets these days, whereas presidents have actual power. But if monarchies were given power again (not absolute power, of course, retaining a constitutional structure), they would probably be less likely to do as much damage as elected rulers. The fact that monarchies have, in the Western world, been largely figurehead for some time means that the general expectation has been shaped for figurehead monarchs. This fact, in addition to the idea of monarchy representing tradition and the past, will make him likely to be more conservative in governance (and by conservative, I don't mean right-wing, but simply cautious, or inclined towards preservation more than innovation), which, will tend, at least, to minimize damage, even if it does also tend to minimize benefit.

A king should also be directly responsible to the people, whereas an elected officials loyalty, in many cases, is primarily to his party.

You also wouldn't have to put up with bogus campaign promises that are forsaken as soon as someone is in office.

I would also argue that a king can be trained for the job from earliest youth, and so can be better prepared for ruling than someone who is elected to the office.

Note that these are all arguments from likelihood and probability, and in many cases from purely hypothetical ideas of what monarchy, not from what it has meant in the past. By no means do I make any claims of universality for my arguments. You can't make universal claims in such a field, which is why I also support the ability to depose kings, and, if need be, regicide.

EDIT: I just realised that most of this post is irrelevant, since we are talking about actual monarCHIES, not the idea of monarCHY. So, basically: what Earniel said about stability, and opening doors.

[Mari]

I like our monarchy
But with the recession and all, there is talk of cutting back on salary for the Queen etc. Everyone has to work towards a better economy.
So if the level of income of the monarchy is dependent on the economy of the country, maybe there is no relation between having a monarchy and doing well economically?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I understand that Luxembourg is an economically prosperous and highly successful tourist destination; its small size and population could conceivably limit poverty, as well.

And they have a very good name in the banking world. I dare say their strong record in financial services is a big (if not the main influence) on the high GDP.

Oh, you're just jealous Belgium didn't make the list.

Pfft, if we had made the top ten, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be due to our king. Flemish economy all the way!

True enough. But, perhaps a more pertinent question would be what would happen if, hypothetically, you took two otherwise identical countries, and established a monarchy in one and a democracy or republic in the other.

It would be an interesting experiment, but one that is a tad difficult to carry out. Still, would be interesting.

Except that kings, for the most part, are puppets these days, whereas presidents have actual power.

That depends on which nation you're looking at. Monarchies come in many different sizes and shapes, you've got a wide range between absolute monarchs and figurehead-monarchs. And aside from the powers the king has been granted through the constitution, there is still a wide variety of areas in which he can carry much influence, even if he has no direct power in it. But that goes for all types of rulers, naturally.

The king of Belgium may look like only a figurehead, (a view I sometimes imagine he specifically maintains) but I think a lot of Belgians don't entirely realise what powers he actually has. There is still the call from certain areas in the Belgian political spectrum for a purely ceremonial kingship.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

And they have a very good name in the banking world. I dare say their strong record in financial services is a big (if not the main influence) on the high GDP.

Indeed. However I'd say Luxemburg's small size and sovereignty also indirectly explain the country's high GDP per capita. I mean, if Frankfurt or some of the other nearby cities also were independent, they'd probably get top rankings as well and maybe even beat Luxemburg.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That depends on which nation you're looking at. Monarchies come in many different sizes and shapes, you've got a wide range between absolute monarchs and figurehead-monarchs. And aside from the powers the king has been granted through the constitution, there is still a wide variety of areas in which he can carry much influence, even if he has no direct power in it. But that goes for all types of rulers, naturally.

The king of Belgium may look like only a figurehead, (a view I sometimes imagine he specifically maintains) but I think a lot of Belgians don't entirely realise what powers he actually has. There is still the call from certain areas in the Belgian political spectrum for a purely ceremonial kingship.

It's widely known that our Queen is very interested in politics and carries a lot of weight behind the scenes, though no one but the insiders know/realize exactly how far her influence reaches.
However, it's an undeniable fact that though Prime Ministers and cabinets come and go, the Queen has been there a greater part of her life. She knows other royals, other high ranking people and they know her. That does give you influence.

[Comic Book Guy]

It still doesn't make it any less absurd or obscene. An outdated, unjustifiable system that eventually will be abolished along with the intrinsic link with religion and the state. As I understand it, the amount of taxpayers money that goes towards the British monarchy is the only funding that can't be lowered. Hopefully when the hag crokes it, the British, faced with having the moronic Charles as head of state will be forced to question the ludicrous nature of the establishment they support.

[Earniel]

Charming as ever.

But having a monarchy does not prevent a nation of having a separation between state and church.

[Mari]

*nods in agreement*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Nor, indeed, does abolishing monarchy by any means ensure separation of church and state. Finland and Iceland have Lutheranism as their state religion; some Swiss cantons have Old Catholicism for their state religion; others, as well as a number of South American countries, have Roman Catholicism as their state religion; in Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church. I believe that Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg are all monarchies, without established churches. Indeed, as I understand it, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is generally considered the most non-religious country in the Europe. By no means is there any necessary link between state religion and monarchy. The connection comes in primarily because many forms of religion (especially Protestant) tend to subordinate themselves to the State, as an arm of the State; the best known example in the English-speaking world is Queen Elizabeth, who as Queen of England is also head of the Church of the England.
But anyway, this connection of church and state is usually more problematic for the church than the state. In England again, there has not been an official revision of the primary Anglican service book, the Book of Common Prayer, since 1662. This is largely because the revision has to go through Parliament, who can't be bothered to deal with it. The effect that the Church has on the government is largely limited to things like the Act of Settlement, which states that the king of England cannot be a Catholic, or be married to a Catholic, that he must be a member of the C. of E. Since he is also head of the C. of E., I think that's entirely reasonable. The marriage bit also essentially an empty law, at this point, as it has been made fairly clear that, should the heir apparent express interest in marrying a Roman Catholic, the act would be revised, so that in effect, only the actual monarch must be a member of the established religion.

Basically, what I'm saying is: a) established religion has no connection with monarchy, and b) as it is known in our day and age, it is a harmless old creature that has lost all its teeth.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by GW

Basically, what I'm saying is: a) established religion has no connection with monarchy, and b) as it is known in our day and age, it is a harmless old creature that has lost all its teeth.

Well, at least, established Christian religion in Europe, as regards (b). And the roots of most such establishments are in monarchy, even if the later parliaments have not eliminated it - cuius regio, eius religio, old chum.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The notion of established religion is common among many cultures, even those which were not monarchical. Ancient Athens is a prime example, the pride of democracies, where Socrates was condemned to death for supposed atheism.

[Count Comfect]

Athens' established religion predated the democracy (kings and tyrants, in the Greek sense). I'm certainly not arguing that democracies necessarily eliminate established religion (since that would be clearly false), but I would say that democracies rarely institute one.

[Comic Book Guy]

I believe Sweden is also the least religious country in Europe if not the world, Atheists make up over 80% I believe.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

And what is the name of that country? Oh right, the Kingdom of Sweden. My point is proven.

[Coffeehouse]

Let's see then. How do these numbers add up for the next 5 years? Do we see a pattern?

-------------------2009-----------------Projection for 2014

(GDP per capita in US $)
1 Luxembourg-----78,108----------------86,160
2 Qatar------------92,121----------------80,082
3 Norway----------52,797----------------58,610
4 Singapore--------45,665-----------------54,499
5 Brunei-----------49,711----------------53,427
6 United States-----45,550-----------------52,393
7 Hong Kong--------41,902-----------------51,660
8 Switzerland-------41,840-----------------46,694
9 Sweden----------37,762----------------46,132
10 Canada---------38,154----------------44,724

11. Austria, 12. Netherlands, 13. Kuwait, 14. Iceland, 15. Ireland.

[Mari]

Oy! >_< We're dropping in rank? *prepares a peptalk for the Dutch politicians to fund green industries and education*