A subject which may come across as controversial in many places is Monarchy. Especially passionate support for it. I am an ardent defender of Constitutional Monarchism, and in Sweden our Royal House enjoys great acclaim, about 65% of our population expresses full support. Despite the occasional whinging of the minuscule Republican society.
Our Swedish royal house is dedicated to the country's international position in concrete works. The King is an ambassador, representative, informant and icon for Sweden towards dignitaries and foreign heads of state. Symbolically, our monarchy unites Sweden as a constant, a fact, especially during times when politics is fragmenting and public leaders fail, where society does not find anything that remains what it is and is what it says it is.
The Monarchy is an ancient and glorious institution, honourable and worthy, which serves as a unifying symbol in culture, history, heritage and society, stands above the divisive chasm of politics, enhances international reputation and standing, and contributes to a more beautiful, meaningful societal environment. It imbues virtue in the common citizen and inspires senses of loyalty, conviction, dedication and strength. A cause worth fighting for, an institution which yields a country you feel is worth fighting for.
The Swedish royal house is furthermore very present in engaging the Swedish people in the grandeur of their lives, with invitations to balls and dinners, special awards handed out to accomplishments in science or literature, or in heroic efforts for the country. It is also quite a thrill to walk one of the many estates' grounds, such as Drottningholm, and take in some of the most elite architectural accomplishments of mankind whose beauty touches the soul.
Without many kings and queens of Swedish history, our country would not be what it is today. From Birger Jarl who united and strengthened us in the 13th century, to King Gustav Vasa who freed us from Danish supremacy in the Kalmar Union, to Charles the XII who, as a mere teenager, fought back a triple alliance bent on invading Sweden. Kings like Gustav III gave us great contributions of culture and political rights, and our current Queen, Silvia of House Bernadotte, makes staggering contributions to Alzheimer's research and general combating of dementia.
The usual adversaries interject that a King or Queen by nature is undemocratic and that there has been so many ruthless tyrants across the centuries whom people have fought to be free of. And it's true, terrible rulers in all forms of government have existed, not just monarchy, and with monarchy there is too, good examples and many times in history there has also been benevolent rulers and upstart outlaws making life miserable for the people.
James I of England. Under his rule, the two kingdoms England-Scotland were united. Literature and the fine arts flourished under his reign, he himself writing many books and poems. During his rule, international trade through the British East India Company increased dramatically.
Cyrus II of Persia. During his reign human rights and military strategy were greatly improved.
Augustus Caesar. During this time, 27 BC - 14 AD. Augustus improved the infrastructure and military of Rome. He also reformed the taxation process. His reign is known as Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, because during his reign diplomacy flourished.
Many royal laws passed down in medieval times severely punished pedophilia, rape, theft and murder, whether low born or high born. When you actually research and study history beyond shallow, mainstream education, you might be surprised as to how much good many did. On different levels and facets of well-being.
People are usually very reluctant to accept a ruler under the banner of monarch, even though such close cousins as presidents or prime ministers are perfectly acceptable. But with Monarchy, even the staunchest enemies of leftist beliefs seem to elude to a rationale that that the root of all evil throughout time has been power in the hands of anyone who in some way has been classified as above another.
It's not about putting oneself on a high horse as the only capable one, it's about accepting the task of living up to the role. Because someone should, and must. I find it stupid to always critique, "Who are you to", or "You have no right to", we hardly get anywhere when no one has the right to do anything. The question should be who are right for the job, and what ideology, for that matter, is.
Contemporary examples: Studies carried out by researchers have found that during the Arab Spring, whose aftermath sent shock-waves of mayhem throughout the Middle East, the nations with Constitutional Monarchies endured and even came out unscathed from the upheaval and chaos the Arab spring wrought . Whilst countries which were republics, or simply without Monarchy, took the worst blows. This was not found to be coincidental but rather the opposite, there was a clear link to political stability and societal strength to the countries with Monarchies.
Consider now the British Royal House. Probably the most famous in the world whose influence spreads just as far. Throughout the Commonwealth, where former British domains all acknowledge the same Queen, Elizabeth II, Great Britain's royalty aids these nations with developmental technology, schools, hospitals, funds and military support. Another glimpse into the prosperity and cooperation which Monarchy engenders.
As for the cost of Monarchy. Falsely, you'll hear people claim that outrageous amounts of money goes into the pockets of royals, or that it dries taxes up to maintain a Royal House. Firstly, the Royals do not get their funds directly from taxpayer money but instead from the special governmental branch whose identity varies in name and structure depending on the country. The Royals will also recieve income through their private estates, but they are still not as rich as many would think. According to, money.nnn: "Media reports have estimated the Queen's personal fortune is worth up to £360 million ($470 million). That's a nice chunk of change, but over 320 Brits are richer, according to the Sunday Times."
Speaking of expenses, a far more burdensome state of rule in terms of finance happens to be presidentialism. Where yearly campaigns and upkeep costs fortunes way above constitutional monarchies. Compare this with all the money Monarchy generates for the national income through tourism and royal weddings. Every time a Swedish royal wedding takes place, all of Finland and half of Germany partakes in watching it, resulting in massive income.
Some people will say that a Royal house consists of lazy and privileged layabouts. Also a falsehood, they work extremely hard throughout the world. Take the British House for example. "Every year the Royal Family as a whole carries out over 2,000 official engagements throughout the UK and worldwide. These engagements may include official State responsibilities. Members of the Royal Family often carry out official duties in the UK and abroad where The Queen cannot be present in person."
-British Royalist Society
So, after this mytake I hope that I have made my stance more than clear, and that you have gained valuable insight into what the Monarchy actually is and does, and why preserving and strengthening it isn't just some philosophical fancy, but necessary, and highly profitable for us all.
Most Helpful Opinions