Royal Families

Agung is the highest ruler in our country, and plays the rule of overlooking the parliament and appointing senators (base on prime minister recommendation of course). His majesty is also the commander of the royal army and also the leader of the religion. While Sultan and Raja play almost the same rule, but their responsibility is only limited to their own state assembly and affairs. They are not as popular as royal families in other countries. Usually they are having very low profiles and seldom have exposure in the media. However, if there was royal scandals being discovered, then it will become a hot issues being covered in the medias.

ahhh ok... It seems more like the Royal Family over there or the Agung at least does more work and has a more important role in your country than the Royal Families in Europe. Is it allowed to speak freely about the Agung? it seems like he is very respected because hes a head in your religion. Thanks again for elaboratnig!=)

That is very interesting, i did not know too much about Malaysia's systematic culture. What is the difference in roles between the Agung and Sultan/Raja? Are they really popular in Malaysia as in people read about their lives in magazines or newspapers etc? Thanks for sharing!

I completely agree with you... may she rest in peace. I was a big fan of Princess Diana, after her i never really heard of other "royalty" doing such things. I think you're right, after all we're all supposed to be equal, but the system doesn't work that way. Most royal families though are decided by bloodlines etc. which i think is ridiculous. Compared to presidents/prime ministers, they are elected by the people. Kings and Queens are where they are because of their blood. that is why i think in todays world, royal families especially in Europe have become redundant and are just there to sign papers and thats about it.

I personally doubt it. Why? Because the "presindents/prime ministers are elected by the people" is just a political stereotype, a part of a so called "democratic rhetoric". Not only that leaders world-wide aren't elected by the people but by various groups of power/interests which manipulate them in order to achieve their own objectives, but these cardboard leaders of yours have only the power offered to them by their master pupeteers. In this context I wonder which has become redundant? the Monarchy or the "democratic" republican settlements?

I see your point... hmm very interesting. I know presidents or whatever *leader* is elected are greatly influenced by other groups. There are a ton of conspiracy theories out there, but i do think the monarchy leaders have become more redundant when it comes to actually having a role in the government system. For example, In some countries you have both Kings and Queens while having presidents and prime ministers who are more active. So thats why i was thinking, why even have Kings and Queens if they're not active at all?

Nothing of that sort. Well, in the villages, the royal family would get more respect than a President or Prime Minister that a people do not get to see...and what they do is the BIG PICTURE as far as the villagers are concerned. The royal family would be their first access and the royal family takes care of their little needs and provides solutions. The royal family is not treated like they are above everyone else (by the government or the law)...we are a democratic country.

So if they don't really have a role in the government and if they don't really help people directly but like a rich person helps someone. Why do they still have royal families? is it just because of status etc? also are they seen and treated as if they are above everyone else? would they also have more respect for a King than your president or prime minister?

The royal family seem like celebrities, hehe. I agree that their role has changed immensly throughout time as well as their power weakening. Why would you not go as far as abolishing the monarchy system? Could Denmark continue without the royal family being *royal*?

Wow, very detailed and informative! Thanks for sharing! It is a very interesting topic, especially from country to country as they have different histories when it comes to royal families. I did not understand how Princess Margarita of Romania is in the line of succession to Queen Elizabeth? and her position is 86? do you mean that she is number 86 in line to become Queen of England? And if so, how will she make it if shes number 86?=p Maybe i misunderstood...

hmmm, it does differ from each country. However, if their roles are not important anymore meaning that their *job* has been taken up by a president or a prime minister, than why would you need a King or Queen to also be considered the leaders of a country if they don't really do anything compared to the president? I understand if the country's system is monarchy but if why have both democratic leaders and monarch leaders?

that is true, I think it can be a soap opera sometimes especially with all the gossip and rumours around. The English Royalties usually come on tv and magazines with either scandals or other such things. Also, they come on tv and magazines much more often than the prime minister=p

Hehehe, Bush was very suspicious, i felt that someone must be playing a joke on the world=p no offense if ever... anyways thanks for the idea, I also would like to learn more about the monarchy systems around the world because they are quite interesting. I have lived in 3 countries who have a royal family. That would be England, Norway, and United Arab Emirates. The UAE have several royal families and are considered high above everyon else. They usually look down on foreigners etc. Anyhow, those royal families are also the presidents of each state and also the *original* royal family owns the whole country. In England you of course have Queen Elizabeth and the rest of the Family as well as Prime minister Tony Blaire. In Norway you have a Royal Family as Well not too known around the world, and then they have a prime minister who is active in the government. In Norway the King just signs and approves the laws etc, but these laws when passed to him are already agreed upon by the judicial system so i don't know why we really need him=p In England i do know that the queen is very important and there are a ton of gossip involving the princes, etc, and you also had Princess Diana which i had great respect for (she did much more than her role in the monarchy). So yea, i wonder why they are still needed when they don't really do anything important anymore, i think they just stand for a symbol nowadays.

yea the crown should be removed=p Bhutan still has a monarchy, thats true.. do you know if the King also acts as the president/primeminister?