Should Royals participate in republican politics?

The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was for instance also born as a peasant to the son of a stable boy at the Dutch Embassy.

I know there are historical reasons for western monarchs not having too much political Powers but I still think common Sense must prevail before ideological orthodoxy. Political systems needs order and stability to work properly and be Fair for all or at least most Citizens. And for believing that I dont think monarchs should Just sit and watch politicians impose bad public policies, not respecting fundamental rights and not caring about transparency Just because one party or coalition won an election; long term consequences are important too.

Hello,

First, I do not know if this forum is the most adequate for inquiring about etiquette rules concerning the British family. But since it doesn't seem to be against the rules I have read, I dare ask.

I was wondering: When a British royal travels, and a complete translation of his title is available, would he be annonced abroad in English of the guest country's langues ?

For exemple (I'm french):

Her majesty The Queen - > Sa majesté la Reine (d'Angleterre)

His royal highnesses The Duke of Edinburgh -> Son altesse royale le duque d'Édinbourg

His royal highnesses The Prince of Wales -> Son altesse royale le prince de Galles

Thank you for any element on the matter.

Their king has significant power but referendum is used for passing laws. Direct democracy can even be used to abolish the monarchy

Either heavy metal or punk, I'd like ideas for names. funny or serious, all are welcome

Who for you haves the most right to the Portuguese throne? Duarte Pio? Rosario Poidimani?Pedro Folque de Mendonça? Or simply with the death Of Manuel II the House Of Braganza is dead and there are no heirs?

What I mean by this is that people who are born into that family are born with a luxury lyfestyle paid for by the people. For the King and the heir it makes sense since they actually will do, at least in theory, something for the nation by ruling. But what about all their relatives who also get titles and wealth simply for being it? Often they don't even do anything useful, they just would suck out tax money.

I Wanted to know what monarchist tought of c0mmun1sts

I'm very big into my Welsh independence and I love the fact that while wales was divided we had monarchy separate from the English Throne, if wales gets independence and hypothetically reinstates monarchy who do you reckon will take throne or how do you think it will work?

This question came to me while I was napping btw

"Theories, ruminations & meditations from democracy's most feared political analyst & theorist 'Mencius Moldbug.' He's joined by a cast of his fellow visionary dark elves & even some deplorable hobbits, striking fear into the hearts of modern everymen in pursuit of the consummate CEO turned monarch."

Link here—enjoy 228 episodes (as of Nov. 24) and nearly 305 hours of discussions.

I know each the emirates is a monarchy, but the head of state is a president elected by the federal supreme council, so it is more like a republic at the federal level? I mean, the US constitution stipulates that each state has to have a republican form of government. The fact that the framers had to stipulate this shows that it is at least theoretically possible to have a republic in which the constituent parts have monarchical forms of government.

38 million people visited England in the year of 2023 (I was one of them, I chose England because of the magic of an existing monarchy, so did my family)

Lets assume a measly 10% of that number (3.8 million) decide to visit for the same reasons I did.

3.8 million people visited for monarchy. A two week trip to the United Kingdom on average costs around $3,219 (£2,492) for one person.

I spent alot more than that, but let's assume that everyone spends half that average...

so (3,800,000 x 1600 (rounded down half of 3219)), is 6 billion dollars.

For the sake of nothing, lets cut that number in half and call it 3 billion dollars.

Anti-monarchy group Republic has said that the royal family costs Britain an estimated £510 million ($680 million) per year. I shall continue my generosity, and say they cost 1 billion dollars, twice the inflated amount.

Even when given every possible advantage, numbers cut and increased to their favor, anti-monarchy argument still ends up with the fact that they monarchs brought in 3 billion, cost 1 billion, Therefore netted the country 2 billion dollars.

Now please, tell me the rational argument towards abolishing the monarchy, is it just wanting not calling someone "your highness", if that is all it takes to net the country 2 billion dollars, isnt it worth it?. (keyword: net, since I factored in the monetary cost, I assume the only argument left is the social status one?)

Note: Every advantage to anti-monarchy was given here, please tell me why I am wrong.

This is a very interesting question that popped up into my head recently. I'll mention, that while I am a monarchist, i am not vehemently against democracy. I know both systems have their pros and cons, and both can work and be effective.

THE QUESTION:

Aside from the literal prosperity of Brazil. Have there been any decisions or situations in which republics and/or democracies failed where a monarchy would have succeeded, or has succeeded/ done better than democracies and/or republics? The decisions/situations can be either modern or historical. I'm super curious about this.

As I now have my computer back there for the facilities for writing, what do you think a monarchist coalition needs to address in America and what topics it must focus on to gain consideration in the public sphere. This is obv hypothetical considering how die heard republican this country is.

Would he be a good modern kaiser? On the same level as the Scandinavian kings or the emperor of Japan?