Some people say all men are equal, and presidents are the most appropriate in a real democracy.
Others say royalty have riches and palaces, princes and princesses and glamour.
What about costs? The people have to pay for all that. Worth it?
2006-06-11 07:41:32 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
They offered to make George Washington a king but he refused it. He knew that hereditary government offers a leader the least incentive to be a good leader, and that his descendants might not be men of good will as he was. Future generations might not thank us if they suffer because evil men misuse the system we instituted.
2006-06-11 07:46:56 · answer #1 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really isn't a matter of choice. America fought a war to be free of England and her king, and to be able to choose a president, who can be replaced at regular intervals. Or irregular intervals if his behaviour warrants it.
Most royals don't have riches and palaces. In fact, there are probably more royals living like ordinary people, struggling with mortgages, and attempting to keep up a front, than are enjoying any sort of regal life. Not everyone is on Queen Elizabeth's salary scale!
Costs don't really factor into it. Much of the wealth of Britain's royal family, for example, is inherited.
Still, presidents don't come cheap either. They have to be housed, servants, allowances, etc.etc.
One of the best of the bunch seems to be Holland's Queen, who is very down to earth, very approachable, and very hard working. She doesn't trot around in tiaras, but she's a valuable addition to that country.
2006-06-12 00:07:41 · answer #2 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a monarch, but probably a constitutional monarchy nowadays, is better. People are fickle and public opinion can change over a single issue. A King or Queen doesn't have to worry about this and can have real long term planning and goals for their country. There is consistency in times of crisis. I personally feel the UK should give more power back to the Queen and let her make some of the more important decisions.
2006-06-11 15:47:16 · answer #3 · answered by CleverGal 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President, As an American I choose to have the right to decide whom to vote for, I too don't think born into royalty makes one a good king or queen.
2006-06-11 14:47:00 · answer #4 · answered by DollyLama 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the idea of ultimately choosing a president (that way, you would feel more equal, having a say) but now the population is so large, it's like having a king when it comes down to making decisions
but, at least everybody is still working, no one is getting paid extravagantly to exist
2006-06-11 14:50:16 · answer #5 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presidents.
I prefer at least some form of lip-service paid to each man (or woman) earning their own way into the office based on their own abilities. It's not (not supposed to be anyway) based on who their mommy or daddy was or how much personal wealth they have.
Granted, sometimes talent for leadership runs in families. That's probably one reason why so many dynasties in the history of the world have been long-lived.
2006-06-11 23:44:52 · answer #6 · answered by poohba 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Queen
2006-06-11 14:43:32 · answer #7 · answered by The Foosaaaah 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do no like any of the above choices, but presidents are the best of the three because the are not born into their role.
2006-06-11 18:37:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our beloved leader Lord Bush said "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier. Just so long as I'm the dictator."
He also said that our Constitution was just a g.d. piece of paper.
2006-06-13 18:11:07 · answer #9 · answered by webpence.com 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President. We fought a revolution so that we would never have to bow or curtsy to a king or queen ever again.
2006-06-11 14:44:48 · answer #10 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋