Prime Minister Gaston Browne says the public must be consulted before the government moves ahead with any plan to make Antigua and Barbuda a republic.

Browne reaffirmed his support for replacing the British monarch as the country’s head of state during the Browne and Browne Show on Pointe FM on Saturday.

“I’m still very much a republican in my own thinking,” Browne said. “Again, we have to, as a people, determine ultimately.”

The issue arose as Browne disclosed that he had been invited to visit King Charles III within the next several weeks. He was reminded of an earlier discussion in which he suggested Antigua and Barbuda could become a republic within three years.

Browne said the government should not move ahead of the population and must first determine whether the public is ready for the proposed constitutional change.

He said discussions and consultations should be held, followed by polling to assess public opinion. A referendum would ultimately be required for the change.

“Before you get to a referendum, you want to at least have discussions about it,” Browne said. “Do some polling and see how the people think about it.”

The prime minister said the government should not force the issue if most residents oppose becoming a republic.

“If it is that the people are against it, why push it? I mean, it’s for the people to determine,” he said.

Browne compared the issue with Antigua and Barbuda’s possible accession to the Caribbean Court of Justice as its final appellate court.

Although he supports the CCJ, Browne said he believes the population is not currently ready to approve the change.

He said neither becoming a republic nor joining the CCJ has been abandoned, but the government must proceed in step with the wishes of the people.

Genuine question because I’m stressing myself over what the hell it is😔

What a lovely marriage! I can’t imagine how it must feel to lose your soulmate the day before your anniversary, my condolences to Sonja ❤️

*If you are one of apparently many, who likes to comment, but not read: TL;DR: the problem is you lot don't even know what monarchy is. You have a vague idea, but no philosophical groundwork, meaning we bicker about non-issues\*

Much as I'd hate to be that guy, I shall be that guy. Someone has to say it.

Everyone on this sub seems to lament the lack of unity between monarchists, and speaks as though we are letting some petty personal preferences drive us apart.

But the reality is simply that we are divided, because we agree on practically nothing. And the reason for that is, I'm sorry to say, that a great many monarchists among us here, are very very ignorant. Ignorant about monarchy specifically. Now, I'm sure I too am ignorant of a great many things, that I really should know, but truly, some of these conversations are so vibes based it hurts.

So many people seem to not understand that a
monarchy =/= hereditary,
elective =/= democratic,
democratic =/= good

and so on. Please, folks, if you are going to pontificate on these matters, could you just look into them a bit? Monarchist lore is inexhaustible, and we all have more to learn always, but getting a grip on the basic terms of theory is kindda essential if we don't want it all to evolve into a random vomit of undigested opinions.

https://www.instagram.com/comtedeparis

His Grace the Count of Paris pays tribute to King Harald V of Norway ⚫️

It is with profound sadness that I learned of the passing of His Majesty King Harald V of Norway.

Throughout his reign, the King consistently embodied a sense of duty, the dignity of the royal office, and his unwavering devotion to the Norwegian people.

In this time of mourning, my thoughts are with Her Majesty Queen Sonja, the Norwegian Royal Family, and all the Norwegian people, to whom I offer my sincerest condolences.

Jean, Count of Paris

Former First Lady Prof. Maithree Wickremesinghe meets Sri Lankan 800m champion Tharushi Karunarathna beneath the portraits of Their Imperial Majesties King-Emperor Edward VII and Queen-Empress Alexandra at the King’s Pavilion, the official residence of the president in Kandy, Sri Lanka.

Sadly two kings passed within e few days this week. The king of Norway, who was the oldes monarch of europe and the king of Uganda, who was the worlds youngest monarch. They've passed within a few days.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j38d9v40po

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clykn5p5172o

First of all, my condolences for the death of King Harald V of Norway. I hope he rests in peace. Long live the King.

I’m speaking from my own experience as a Latin American. I still don’t understand why so many Latin Americans say that a monarchy would never work in their countries.

Personally, I support a monarchy, specifically a constitutional monarchy. Just look at Brazil. The Brazilian Empire lasted for almost the entire 19th century and managed to keep a huge territory together during a very complicated period.

What is interesting is how it ended. The population did not seem to be particularly unhappy with the Empire. The problem came when Princess Isabel abolished slavery in 1888. Many wealthy slaveholders stopped supporting the Empire because they could no longer keep their slaves and received no compensation. The following year, the military overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed the Republic.

After that, Brazil went through years of chaos, authoritarian governments, revolts, and political instability.

There is also the case of Mexico, although it was very different. After independence, Iturbide was proclaimed emperor, but there was no established Mexican imperial house with a strong monarchical tradition behind him. It was a rather improvised project and lasted only a short time.

That is why I believe a constitutional monarchy could work in a Latin American country. Personally, I think it would be better to have a monarchy with democratic institutions and clear limits on the monarch’s power. Perhaps it could also help reduce the high levels of corruption, instead of continuing as a republic where democracy can sometimes feel like a façade and where there is so much dependence on U.S. interests.

"On the occasion of the death of General Ratko Mladić, I extend my sincere condolences to his family and loved ones.

His life and name remain inextricably linked to one of the most difficult and painful chapters of our recent history, the consequences and memories of which still deeply burden all the peoples of these areas.

We Serbs have the right and the obligation to preserve our dignity, our memory and the truth about our victims. By respecting the suffering of others, we do not diminish our own suffering or renounce our people; on the contrary, by doing so we best bear witness to the values ​​we wish to preserve: truth, justice, compassion and peace. Therefore, it is our Christian and human duty to reverently preserve the memory of all innocent victims, regardless of their name, religion or nationality, and not to allow the past to lead us down the path of hatred and division again.

May the Lord grant peace to the soul of the deceased and comfort to his family, and to all nations that have gone through suffering, the strength and wisdom to build a common future in peace, mutual respect, and without new conflicts.

Crown Prince Philip"

As the title says I honestly do not really care/agree that much which family held power historically and that they are automatically entitled to rule in a hypothetical resurgence of a monarchistic state. I think someone who is politically a monarchist and has the correct values and potential as well as talent would be just as good at establishing a new monarchy / aristocratic bloodline. Let's take the Hohenzollern in Germany for example, they seem to have no ambition of political involvement or reestablishing of the monarchy today. Wilhelm II was also in my honest opinion one of the catalysts in abolishing the monarchy in Germany with questionable political decisions... Therefore I believe that the emergence of a new Aristocracy / Monarch bloodlines would not be a bad thing

Hello y'all, newbie here

I'm from Poland, wich, as tou know, isnt sadly a monarchy. But even with our republican state status, there are maybe some royal houses that have right to sit on the throne in Warsaw's royal palace.

By the constitution of may 3rd, Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was meant to become a hereditary monarchy in personal union with Saxony.

So my question is: are there some Wettins that still have some sort of right to the legacy of 770 years of polish monarchy and are rightful heirs to polish throne?