Monarchists

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Unite!

No matter you prefer the absolute, parliamentary or symbolic kind. It must be true monarchy though, hereditary or at least dynastic. If enough attendance happens we can start a club or a social group restoration revolution maybe.

Please specify, if you don't mind, what kind of a monarchist you are; absolutist, parliamentary or symbolic (non-functional).

Hereby I declare that I, Mouzafphaerre, am a parliamentary monarchist. TC prosecutors, come and get me! :smash:

***

Monarchist ORGahs who have declared themselves so far:

Mouzafphaerre - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Shinseikhaan - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Frunculus - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Reenk Roink - Absolute (Enlightened)
woad&fangs - Parliamentary/Constitutional
KarlXII - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Wakizashi - Parliamentary/Constitutional
rory_20_uk - Absolute (Enlightened)
lars573 - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Vladimir - Absolute (Enlightened)
A Terribly Harmful Name - Absolute (Enlightened)
Ibn-Khaldun - Absolute (Enlightened)
Stephen Asen - Parliamentary/Constitutional
King Henry V - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Ignoramus - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Cronos Impera - Absolute (Feudal/Elected by Aristocracy)
Beefy187 - Parliamentary/Constitutional
Evil_Maniac From Mars - Parliamentary/Constitutional

.

[seireikhaan]

I would say a parliamentary monarch. A balance between the people's vote and the hereditary line.

[HoreTore]

I will fight your inbreds till the end of time!!



.....Or until they're all so inbred that they're incapable of reproducing living offspring.... Which honestly shouldn't be too long now...

[Furunculus]

Constitutional monarchy = teh win*



* for Britain.

[Kralizec]

Off with your heads!

[CountArach]

Are Republicans welcome?

[Reenk Roink]

(Enlightened) Absolut(e/ism)

[Ironside]

I will fight your inbreds till the end of time!!

.....Or until they're all so inbred that they're incapable of reproducing living offspring.... Which honestly shouldn't be too long now...

They have a counter plan for that. It seems that they've started to marry the lower classes. :juggle2:

[Mouzafphaerre]

Are Republicans welcome?
.
Totally unwelcome. :yes:
.

[woad&fangs]

:charge:
An unelected executive combined with an elected legislature and a good system of checks and balances. Democracy works great on a local level but turns into a sceaming match when 300 million people are involved.

[Jolt]

Convict Republican.

[KarlXII]

Parliamentary Monarchist.

Mouz- It may seem like an obvious question, but what Monarchy are you in support of?

And also, Monarchists: Maniac established a group. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/group.php?groupid=33)

[Samurai Waki]

Very liberal leaning Parliamentary Monarchy. Like Sweden, or Norway. Curse being an American, although I suppose I will have a better chance of inciting a general revolt, and Installing myself as King... and I refuse to allow inbreds into my hereditary line, if the choices are Marry the Daughter of King **** who happens to also be your uncle, then obviously the right choice will be to marry a vivacious curvy Latina.

[rotorgun]

Since God is an Absolute Monarchist who gives us a choice to believe in him or not, I guess If I had to be a a King, I would be a Parliamentary Monarchist type. We may be addressed as Your Highness or Your Excellency if you please.:egypt:


Curse being an American...-Wakizashi
Hey...that's a little rough...ouch!:smash::beam:

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not sure exactly. Probably I'd go with Reenk Roink - Absolute (Enlightened).

In theory it's the best, right up until a complete prat is on the throne (look at the Ottoman Empire for example).

In the UK, MPs and Civil Servants effectively supervise themselves and this shows with their toothless regulators, massive pensions and holidays (and they can still whinge!). If oversight was in the hands of a "good" Monarch this could be kept in line. Our current incumbent would be up to it, but it does create massive problems if the position of power is abused.

~:smoking:

[Samurai Waki]

Hey...that's a little rough...ouch!:smash::beam:

I curse my freedom loving ways, only because I don't have a lifelong ruler to complain about. :clown:

[Rhyfelwyr]

The problem with monarchs is that you never know when you'll get some drooling idiot on the throne. So, perhaps a solution for the future would be to design a perfect robot-king to rule over us. One that will be programmed to rule for the people's good, one that will never do anything corrupt etc. I think it's the only solution.

[rotorgun]

The problem with monarchs is that you never know when you'll get some drooling idiot on the throne. So, perhaps a solution for the future would be to design a perfect robot-king to rule over us. One that will be programmed to rule for the people's good, one that will never do anything corrupt etc. I think it's the only solution.

Interesting, but if His Majesty's programming works as well as our computer network at my job, we're going to be in for a rough ride.:sweatdrop:

[Jolt]

Then his Majesty's program is hacked into by a 12-year old geek, who begins effectively ruling UK himself.

[HoreTore]

Then his Majesty's program is hacked into by a 12-year old geek, who begins effectively ruling UK himself.

The good news is; none of us really care what happens to the brits....

[rory_20_uk]

The good news is; none of us really care what happens to the brits....

That comment coming from a Norwegian... oh, the irony!

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'll never understand why some people long not to govern themselves. I mean, at some point a man turns eightteen, and ought to assume responsibility for his own life.



Some remarks:
Until the modern state, monarchs didn't spend their time keeping a bureaucracy and politicians in check. They spend their every waking our keeping the other noble families in check.

Why do people only ever talk about national monarchs? Why not re-instate feudalism? After all, if a monarchy is so great, why not use the system at the provincial level, estate level? Then we'd have even more people to bow to and be inferior to!

Monarchs are great to project imaginary 'if only's' on. 'If only there was a good king', 'if only the king would know'. Well, real life isn't a Disney's Cinderella cartoon. Society has conflicting interests, politics, painful choices to make. Even a hypothetical perfect monarch won't change a thing about that. Never has, never will. Not how government works. Only in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - 'some day my prince will come...'

[FactionHeir]

In other news Britain suspends government of its island territory and installs the governor as ruler (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/15/turk.caicos.uk/index.html) in true colonial fashion :yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In other news Britain suspends government of its island territory and installs the governor as ruler (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/15/turk.caicos.uk/index.html) in true colonial fashion :yes:

Ouch, this is going to hurt.

[HoreTore]

That comment coming from a Norwegian... oh, the irony!

~:smoking:

The difference is that we Norwegians are perfectly aware of the fact that nobody cares about us ~;)

[lars573]

I prefer a parlimentary monarchy. With a written constitution. Where the monarch is the referee in parliment.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Mouz- It may seem like an obvious question, but what Monarchy are you in support of?

Well, it must be obvious indeed. However, given the current circumstances, I prefer saying it's hypothetical. That obvious dynasty, btw, seem totally uninterested in re-establishing themselves, in which I can't blame them. :shrug:
.

[KarlXII]

.


Well, it must be obvious indeed. However, given the current circumstances, I prefer saying it's hypothetical. That obvious dynasty, btw, seem totally uninterested in re-establishing themselves, in which I can't blame them. :shrug:
.

Actually, I meant what Monarchy you support (Established or wish to establish).

I assumed Turkish, but just want to be sure.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Oh, that. Well, I don't believe in nations and strongly dislike nation states. So, my ideal monarchy should be established in a broader land, with federatively or confederatively united -current- countries.
.

[KarlXII]

.
Oh, that. Well, I don't believe in nations and strongly dislike nation states. So, my ideal monarchy should be established in a broader land, with federatively or confederatively united -current- countries.
.

That's an interesting take.

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.

I think they're interesting. (http://sga.monarchisten.org/english_aboutus.html)

[HoreTore]

That's an interesting take.

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.

I think they're interesting. (http://sga.monarchisten.org/english_aboutus.html)

Hmmmmm.....

Wasn't white the colour of the Habsburgs? What's up with the black and yellow?

[Sarmatian]

I believe red and white was the colour of Archduchy of Austria and black and yellow denoted all lands ruled by Habsburgs later, before it was changed againwhen the country was renamed Austria-Hungary.

Considering the party, well, too imperialistic for me. They're trying to do what EU is already doing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.[/URL]Don't make me dig up grandpa's uniform from the attic.

The European continent isn't large enough for both international dynasties and revolutionary republicanism. The Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary - we've dissolved them all before, and I'll do it again. :balloon2:

[KarlXII]

Don't make me dig up grandpa's uniform from the attic.

The European continent isn't large enough for both international dynasties and revolutionary republicanism. The Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary - we've dissolved them all before, and I'll do it again. :balloon2:

Now don't let me remind you Revolutionary Republicanism often falls to good looking and strong worded leaders, some of whom have turned those Republics into Dictatorships or Empires.

[HoreTore]

Now don't let me remind you Revolutionary Republicanism often falls to good looking and strong worded leaders, some of whom have turned those Republics into Dictatorships or Empires.

A dictator is like a monarch, but without the inbreeding. Which makes it far superior to a monarchy.

[rory_20_uk]

A dictator is like a monarch, but without the inbreeding. Which makes it far superior to a monarchy.

Facile statement.

Dictators serve themselves, hence how they got there. Less chance they'll have any interest in the country they've grasped. Monarchs don't always either, but there's a greater chance.

Dictators are often drawn from aristocratic stock or if you're really unlucky the armed forces or worse still some backward tribal dump.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

Is there room in there for an Enlightened Despot?

[Viking]

Facile statement.

Dictators serve themselves, hence how they got there. Less chance they'll have any interest in the country they've grasped. Monarchs don't always either, but there's a greater chance.

Dictators are often drawn from aristocratic stock or if you're really unlucky the armed forces or worse still some backward tribal dump.

~:smoking:

There is nothing in the definition of dictator or monarch that says that one of should serve himself more than the other, as far as I can see. For example, Hitler's and Mussolini's ideologies weren't personal.

[Vladimir]

There is nothing in the definition of dictator or monarch that says that one of should serve himself more than the other, as far as I can see. For example, Hitler's and Mussolini's ideologies weren't personal.

They used their ideologies for personal gain. That is enough for me.

[Viking]

They used their ideologies for personal gain. That is enough for me.

That's not something that a monarch couldn't or wouldn't have done. It's completely possible for a monarch to be a dictator; and even if he isn't, it shouldn't be a given whom he serves the most; his country or himself. And if you happen sit at the top, rock-solid as an average monarch does it; serving your country and yourself are hardly two mutually exclusive things, are they?

[KarlXII]

That's not something that a monarch couldn't or wouldn't have done. It's completely possible for a monarch to be a dictator; and even if he isn't, it shouldn't be a given whom he serves the most; his country or himself. And if you happen sit at the top, rock-solid as an average monarch does it; serving your country and yourself are hardly two mutually exclusive things, are they?

It's possible, but nowadays it's rare. Unless you're willing to tell me the UK is a despotistic monarchy.

[HoreTore]

They used their ideologies for personal gain. That is enough for me.

Hitler used his ideology for personal gain?

What?

Lenin and Franco would also fit in the category of "dictators for the people". And by people, I mean their particular interest group, of curse, the proletariat and the aristocracy respectively.

[Viking]

It's possible, but nowadays it's rare. Unless you're willing to tell me the UK is a despotistic monarchy.

Most monarchies of today are pointless monarchies where the royals are spectators rather than actors in the play of politics. With no power comes no responsibility; there's simply nothing to abuse, such that my previous post and preceding comparisons become irrelevant.

[Vladimir]

Hitler used his ideology for personal gain?

What?



Oh that's right. He never took advantage of his office.

[HoreTore]

Oh that's right. He never took advantage of his office.

In what way did he take advantage in his office in a way that a president or monarch never would?

[Beskar]

The argument for Monarchies, is that some one else gave themselves the same type of power and wasn't heredity born into that position?

[Mouzafphaerre]

Is there room in there for an Enlightened Despot?
.
If dynastic, yes.
.

[Vladimir]

.
If dynastic, yes.
.

Wha HOO! Count me in!

[Kralizec]

Is there room in there for an Enlightened Despot?

.
If dynastic, yes.
.

In that light, do you approve of Gamal Mubarak's grooming for the "throne" in Egypt?

[Vladimir]

In that light, do you approve of Gamal Mubarak's grooming for the "throne" in Egypt?

It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other.

[Mouzafphaerre]

In that light, do you approve of Gamal Mubarak's grooming for the "throne" in Egypt?
.
Nope. Nor Beşşar Esed nor Ilham Aliyef. :rtwno: We're talking about honest monarchies here, not fake republics.
.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

An Absolute or Feudal Monarchy would not be adequate to a modern environment that values moveable property and money over landed estates, practical concerns above metaphysical abstractions, has no religious justification or bond with itself and its ruler, and most importantly is now in a gradual stage of being rendered into an immense uniform mass without distinct national or even dynastic identities which would justify a Monarchy at first, as opposed to a society where the prominence of landed estates suffocates the wealthy urban burgeoisie or at least keeps it in check, like the late French Absolutist Regime. It should also be mindful that no Monarchy can cope with a larger number of urban masses than rural ones, and thus the situations looks even more dim to them.

But so far, in an ideal situation, I think I would be in favour of Enlightened Despotism. Bar that a Constitutional Monarchy.

Alas, the closest we could get today to an authoritarian state would be a totalitarian regime. The difference between it and an actual Monarchy is the whole scenario of tradition and the presence of an elite aristocracy which is almost exclusively bred for the job of ruling, rather than merely relying on the sheer magnanimity of the head autocrat and accidents of destiny which might lead to a good or bad ruler. A Monarchy can have good regents and the aristocracy to act on behalf of the King when he's not fit to rule, examples being Fleury et all, thus shattering the myth that it all decisively depends on the competence of just one ruler, of which I think it deservedly goes only to Totalitarian states without similar checks and balances, or worse, to Republics where the ruling "class" is so corrupt and crooked that only heroes can save it from utter self-destruction and neglect, as tragic as it might sound.

[Meneldil]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

Either you're supporting a constitutional monarchy such as UK, which is pointless since the royals are mere figure there, or you're supporting a system that gives ultimate power to a guy, just because he was born in a given family.
Both ideas are IMO retard.

[Kralizec]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

That's an ironic statement, considering that Napoleon created his own monarchy...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

(Enlightened) Absolut(e/ism)

I agree.. Enlightened Absolute monarchy is the best one..

[Prince Cobra]

I can also be clasified as a monarchist (Parliamentarian), though I am quite aware that there is no chance for Bulgaria to become a monarchy again (esp. after the failure of the King in exile (and Prime-minister between 2001-2005) to play active role in the politics of Bulgaria entering into strange political combination in the previous government of Bulgaria (2005-2009)). Otherwise, I still believe that the monarch can have a stabilising role in the state. For example, dictatorships in the monarchies are less likely.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
List [being constantly] updated [as new monarchists declare themselves]. ~:)
.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

Either you're supporting a constitutional monarchy such as UK, which is pointless since the royals are mere figure there, or you're supporting a system that gives ultimate power to a guy, just because he was born in a given family.
Both ideas are IMO retard.

Wasn't your second Emperor the son of your first Emperor? Sounds like a Dynastic monarchy to me.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Nephew.
.

[lars573]

Nope son, but he only regined for a day or three.. There is a reason the nephew was Napoleon III not Napoleon II.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Buonapartisti are welcome on-board. :sultan:
.

[King Henry V]

Is it too late to join? I'm a good old-fashioned constitutional monarchist, even though I like to whistle L'internationale (it's a jolly smashing tune!).

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
It's never too late comrade. :crown:
.

[Ignoramus]

Either Absolute or Constitutional for me. As long as there's a balance of power between King and Parliament.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

[Beskar]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

It is not unfounded, you haven't been watching enough Disney movies or Tales of kings and princesses and knights of round table.

[lars573]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.
Anyone who feels the head of state should be a mere political animal is lacking in reason.

[Cronos Impera]

I am an Absolute (Elected by the Aristocracy) Monarchist. The people should be allowed to switch between rulling dinasties when an old monarch dies.

[Cronos Impera]

I am a Feudal (Elected by the Aristocracy) Monarchist. The people should be allowed to switch between rulling dinasties when an old monarch dies. Just like in the Holy Roman Empire, electors from all counties unite to elect their supreme leader.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.
As if the electoral farse in the United States means your president is the result of a clear and self-conscious majority, instead of one brainwashed by the media in name of the most money filled guy. I do not want this discussion to twist in that direction, but if McCain had more funds and support from his own party base (as well as bit more electioneering skill in choosing a charismatic VP) he would have won, purely and simply, despite the history of Republican rule - it turns out that every electoral machine in your beloved states is a slave to the interests of a restrict oligarchy, not much different from other regimes except in ostensible appearances.

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is not unfounded, you haven't been watching enough Disney movies or Tales of kings and princesses and knights of round table.

lol, well you are right about Disney. I don't really care for Disney movies nowadays, too stupid (Hanna Montana etc..).


Anyone who feels the head of state should be a mere political animal is lacking in reason.

The idea that any man in a position of power is anything more then a mere political animal is false.


As if the electoral farse in the United States means your president is the result of a clear and self-conscious majority, instead of one brainwashed by the media in name of the most money filled guy. I do not want this discussion to twist in that direction, but if McCain had more funds and support from his own party base (as well as bit more electioneering skill in choosing a charismatic VP) he would have won, purely and simply, despite the history of Republican rule - it turns out that every electoral machine in your beloved states is a slave to the interests of a restrict oligarchy, not much different from other regimes except in ostensible appearances.

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

Of course, it is so much more reasonable for the public to sit around and hope to be blessed with the birth of an enlightened ruler to be born then to actually give the public the power and means to put such an enlightened ruler there whenever they want.

I will not argue that our system is not flawed, but I have to laugh that the idea that any monarch with no accountability will genuinely put the public above everything else, including himself is not recognized as a farce in itself.

[King Henry V]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

Reason has nothing to do with it, my good sir. We monarchists are romantic beings, with music in our hearts and poetry in our souls, and we are in love with all things ancient, quaint, eccentric or quixotic. I support crowned heads precisely because there are so few of them in the world, and are dwindling each decade, just as I would love a rare flower more than a common garden one. If the whole world were ruled by kings, I should defend to my utmost that single country ruled by a republic.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
:2thumbsup:
.

[Reenk Roink]

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

Amazing string of words right here. :2thumbsup:

I even wonder if it is more likely for me to become a president or me to become a king of a country... :juggle2:

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Of course, it is so much more reasonable for the public to sit around and hope to be blessed with the birth of an enlightened ruler to be born then to actually give the public the power and means to put such an enlightened ruler there whenever they want.

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

The problem with Democracy vs. Monarchy, though, is that Monarchy or most authoritarian regimes do not put up a nebula of catchphrases and idealism to act as smoke and mirrors vs. the true nature of its regime. And the true nature is that unless you can put up with several hundred million dollars in campaign donations and all the pervasive influence from behind the curtains to rise up the traditional ladders of power and influence, you're never going to be elected president or to even have a voice on how the country should be ran directly or indirectly. Occasionally, if you act like a radical or sound like one, the media might pay attention to you temporarily, but that's about it.

The measure of political rights is always proportional to how much wealth you have. Realizing it, the difference between a modern suffrage democracy and the old power apparels falls apart together with the illusions; the main difference between it and a Monarchy is that power among the Monarchical elites behind the throne meant landed wealth more than wealth in movable properties, while today it is the opposite.


I will not argue that our system is flawed, but I have to laugh that the idea that any monarch with no accountability will genuinely put the public above everything else, including himself is not recognized as a farce in itself.

The accountability of an oligarch is only towards the cadre that supports him. Large scandals only come down to the greater mass when the otherwise solid power elites are temporarily shattered and divided, then it becomes a convenient tool to throw against the ruling "party" in the name of the opposition. In most cases, the situation never changes radically.


Reason has nothing to do with it, my good sir.

It's rather the romantic idealism of the Monarch figure and of the aristocratic one vs. that of the perfectly self-conscious, well educated and engaged people. Both are myths, and both have little to do with ideological constructs or the illusions frequently nurtured for or against them. Still, the monarch has a level of aloofness and detachment that can serve him well if he is competent, while the great party leader or president can be little more than a pawn of the special interests that aided him into power at first and which are subject to changing whims and pressure of these same groups and the great mass that is always influenced by them. A Monarch might not completely avert these problems completely, but he has a far better control of the situation regardless of his competence due to the greater effective powers attributed to him, therefore allowing him greater care of the situation all by itself.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.


Amazing string of words right here.

I even wonder if it is more likely for me to become a president or me to become a king of a country...

It is actually easier to be President than a Monarch, I never denied this. However this not even is a valid assurance of the merits of new rulers or of the election process as a whole. All you have to do, is to enter a big party, lick their boots loyally, shatter all notions of an independent "plan" or ideal towards the improvement of the country, or at least leave it second to the needs of your party bosses and lobbyists, and you will raise high.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

The problem with Democracy vs. Monarchy, though, is that Monarchy or most authoritarian regimes do not put up a nebula of catchphrases and idealism to act as smoke and mirrors vs. the true nature of its regime. And the true nature is that unless you can put up with several hundred million dollars in campaign donations and all the pervasive influence from behind the curtains to rise up the traditional ladders of power and influence, you're never going to be elected president or to even have a voice on how the country should be ran directly or indirectly. Occasionally, if you act like a radical or sound like one, the media might pay attention to you temporarily, but that's about it.


The measure of political rights is always proportional to how much wealth you have. Realizing it, the difference between a modern suffrage democracy and the old power apparels falls apart together with the illusions; the main difference between it and a Monarchy is that power among the Monarchical elites behind the throne meant landed wealth more than wealth in movable properties, while today it is the opposite.

******** the public has no power or influence. Tell that to the Progressives of the early 1900s.

The issue of needing lots of money to run is not an inherent one of Democracy but is just an issue that needs reform within the United States. If proper reform were given towards campaign elections and donations there would be no need for millions of dollars and everyone willing to run would be allowed full access on television debates etc...

All the problems you are listing can be attributed not to Democracy in general but the two party system in America, heck any party system which manipulates the system to require millions of dollars from a party to run. The two parties are also the ones shutting out any other opinions from being spoken.

Was Lincoln a rich man? Not particularly. How did he become president? And of course the oligarchy that controls Democracy allowed Progressive taxation to amended into the US Constitution because paying much more money was "all part of the plan"?




The accountability of an oligarch is only towards the cadre that supports him. Large scandals only come down to the greater mass when the otherwise solid power elites are temporarily shattered and divided, then it becomes a convenient tool to throw against the ruling "party" in the name of the opposition. In most cases, the situation never changes radically.


Again, ******** read "all the presidents men" before you spew nonsense again. Two guys investigated probably the strongest and toughest political group the presidency has seen in a long time and brought it down.



It's rather the romantic idealism of the Monarch figure and of the aristocratic one vs. that of the perfectly self-conscious, well educated and engaged people. Both are myths, and both have little to do with ideological constructs or the illusions frequently nurtured for or against them. Still, the monarch has a level of aloofness and detachment that can serve him well if he is competent, while the great party leader or president can be little more than a pawn of the special interests that aided him into power at first and which are subject to changing whims and pressure of these same groups and the great mass that is always influenced by them. A Monarch might not completely avert these problems completely, but he has a far better control of the situation regardless of his competence due to the greater effective powers attributed to him, therefore allowing him greater care of the situation all by itself.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.

Oh gee what a brilliant insight, a monarch with the power to kill anyone he doesn't like has a better hold on the special interests group that helped him come to power.

"Thanks for helping me in usurping the throne, now bow down to me and do what I say or you all will be killed!" Is it supposed to make me feel as if he really cares about the general public when the obvious course for any monarch coming to power is to threaten those who helped him come to power with death lest he fears they take him out?




It is actually easier to be President than a Monarch, I never denied this. However this not even is a valid assurance of the merits of new rulers or of the election process as a whole. All you have to do, is to enter a big party, lick their boots loyally, shatter all notions of an independent "plan" or ideal towards the improvement of the country, or at least leave it second to the needs of your party bosses and lobbyists, and you will raise high.

And there you go, you have assumed that with Democracy comes political parties when that is false. Without political parties much of what you say would not be true.

Let history be the judge, monarchies have been around since the beginning of nations, why is that once Democracy began spreading across the world did we see vast improvements in peoples lives? Less wars? If Democracy can not be claimed to be the "better" of the two, then why did the world decided to move towards it in the first place? Why have they not switched back to monarchies?

[CountArach]

I am an Absolute (Elected by the Aristocracy) Monarchist. The people should be allowed to switch between rulling dinasties when an old monarch dies.
:inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.

Democracy doesn't work because it's "empowering the people" or whatever. Democracy works solely because of the existence of an opposition who will complain at whatever those in power do.

And the lack of such an opposition is also the reason why each and every form of dictatorship has failed and any future ones will also fail. A dictatorship simply isn't workable. In any form. It has never worked, and it never will.

[Fragony]

Democracy doesn't work because it's "empowering the people" or whatever. Democracy works solely because of the existence of an opposition who will complain at whatever those in power do.

And the lack of such an opposition is also the reason why each and every form of dictatorship has failed and any future ones will also fail. A dictatorship simply isn't workable. In any form. It has never worked, and it never will.

I think a top down approach is bound to fail because it has no consideration for local affairs, a dictatorship could work if local issues are adressed properly. A succesful democracy is a cluster of small local democracies.

oh, and viva la repubblica, shave the relics French style and never look back.

[HoreTore]

I think a top down approach is bound to fail because it has no consideration for local affairs, a dictatorship could work if local issues are adressed properly. A succesful democracy is a cluster of small local democracies.

oh, and viva la repubblica, shave the relics French style and never look back.

No, it still won't work. The reason it won't work is that the great ideas are achieved through debate and differing opinions. And that won't exist in a dictatorship. While they might achieve success in the beginning, every dictatorship is bound to fail eventually, as they run out of ideas, and those few ideas they will have are bound to be implemented the wrong way. Three examples:

- Nazi Germany. Initial success, Hitler bumped Germany's economy out of recession, and the early conquests of France, Norway, etc. were a great success. But then he invaded Russia. And he did so badly, because nobody dared to propose anything different to what he wanted to do, and as such the invasion was poorly planned and catastrophic defeat.
- Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe gained power, and quickly established proper education and health care for everyone, thus ensuring that all zimbabweans were able to read. But then he ran out of ideas, and mostly remained inactive.... Until he finally implemented his land reform in a truly idiotic fashion, resulting in a economy in ruins.
- Cuba. They have great healthcare and education. That was implemented in the first years after the revolution. There haven't been much progress since that time.

[Cronos Impera]

:inquisitive:

The people "are" the aristocracy. Those poor proles who are driven like cattle don't count as "the people".

[Fragony]

No, it still won't work. The reason it won't work is that the great ideas are achieved through debate and differing opinions. And that won't exist in a dictatorship. While they might achieve success in the beginning, every dictatorship is bound to fail eventually, as they run out of ideas, and those few ideas they will have are bound to be implemented the wrong way. Three examples:

- Nazi Germany. Initial success, Hitler bumped Germany's economy out of recession, and the early conquests of France, Norway, etc. were a great success. But then he invaded Russia. And he did so badly, because nobody dared to propose anything different to what he wanted to do, and as such the invasion was poorly planned and catastrophic defeat.
- Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe gained power, and quickly established proper education and health care for everyone, thus ensuring that all zimbabweans were able to read. But then he ran out of ideas, and mostly remained inactive.... Until he finally implemented his land reform in a truly idiotic fashion, resulting in a economy in ruins.
- Cuba. They have great healthcare and education. That was implemented in the first years after the revolution. There haven't been much progress since that time.

One could argue that it has always worked, succesfull society's where the central government doesn't interfere with local issues aren't that hard to find, quite the contrary, the makeup of the central government isn't necesarily a factor.

[CountArach]

The people "are" the aristocracy. Those poor proles who are driven like cattle don't count as "the people".
I'm glad you think that I am not capable of rational thought. Of course clearly you are not either by your own definition and therefore I take your opinion on Aristocracy to be worth nothing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm glad you think that I am not capable of rational thought. Of course clearly you are not either by your own definition and therefore I take your opinion on Aristocracy to be worth nothing.

Yeah I really don't get this...I don't know what to call it...this anti intellectualism? To support the notion that you and the rest of the poor to middle class public are not smart enough to make decisions for yourself and that it's good for the rich (how is this a measure of intellect anyway?) to rule over all the "stupid public" is....maddening.

[HoreTore]

Yeah I really don't get this...I don't know what to call it...this anti intellectualism? To support the notion that you and the rest of the poor to middle class public are not smart enough to make decisions for yourself and that it's good for the rich (how is this a measure of intellect anyway?) to rule over all the "stupid public" is....maddening.

"The rich"? He said the aristocracy, didn't he? Being a member of the aristocracy isn't a sign of wealth, it's a sign of inbreeding.

[Beefy187]

Parliamentary/Constitutional Monarchy supporter and a occasional backroom visitor, Beefy is here

Long live the emperor :bow:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Welcome! Long live the Tenno indeed. :2thumbsup:
.

[a completely inoffensive name]

"The rich"? He said the aristocracy, didn't he? Being a member of the aristocracy isn't a sign of wealth, it's a sign of inbreeding.

Whoops, I assumed that if you were a part of the aristocracy that you would be rich.

[HoreTore]

Whoops, I assumed that if you were a part of the aristocracy that you would be rich.

The merchant class isn't a part of the aristocracy, and they were the ones with the cash...

[SwordsMaster]

One more here, Absolutist/Elected by peers

[a completely inoffensive name]

The merchant class isn't a part of the aristocracy, and they were the ones with the cash...

Not the only ones...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Parliamentary/Constitutional model all the way.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Updated.
.

[HoreTore]

Not the only ones...

Well alright.

They were the ones who made their own money by working. The aristocracy stole it from someone else or forced others to work for them while they got drunk.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well alright.

They were the ones who made their own money by working. The aristocracy stole it from someone else or forced others to work for them while they got drunk.

Granted, the aristocracy wasn't always great, but it isn't as if a lot of them didn't do work for money. For example, do you think a CEO of a company should be paid less than the average line worker?

[HoreTore]

Granted, the aristocracy wasn't always great, but it isn't as if a lot of them didn't do work for money. For example, do you think a CEO of a company should be paid less than the average line worker?

How is it possible to compare a CEO with the aristocracy?

An aristocrat got his position by birth. A CEO has his position because of his ability, experience and previous results.

The aristocracy was illiterate. A CEO is usually very well educated, or, usually if he has built his own company, has a wealth of experience.

The aristocracy took their position by force. A CEO is there because someone wants him to have the job.

And the list goes on....

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
18 declared monarchists so far. I wonder what proportion of average backroomers that is.
.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How is it possible to compare a CEO with the aristocracy?

An aristocrat got his position by birth. A CEO has his position because of his ability, experience and previous results.

The aristocracy was illiterate. A CEO is usually very well educated, or, usually if he has built his own company, has a wealth of experience.

The aristocracy took their position by force. A CEO is there because someone wants him to have the job.

And the list goes on....

Heh heh.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Indeed, most of the replies so far have been all the same idealized thing :laugh4:. All in all, I would prefer a Shaftesbury or a Conde over a Bernard Maddoff or a Bill Gates.

Also aristocracy "illiterate"? WTH? The British "aristocracy" had a solid etiquette and superb political skills, complemented of course by their higher literacy and knowledge than the rest of the mass. For centuries it was them who patronized the arts and the letters, and not just for the knack of profit and consumer appeal like a CEO would, but of taste. A generalization still, but a valid one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed, most of the replies so far have been all the same idealized thing :laugh4:. All in all, I would prefer a Shaftesbury or a Conde over a Bernard Maddoff or a Bill Gates.

Also aristocracy "illiterate"? WTH? The British "aristocracy" had a solid etiquette and superb political skills, complemented of course by their higher literacy and knowledge than the rest of the mass. For centuries it was them who patronized the arts and the letters, and not just for the knack of profit and consumer appeal like a CEO would, but of taste. A generalization still, but a valid one.

Oh indeed, and more. King Alfred is credited with translating the Latin philosopher Boethius, among others, and the daughter of William the Bastard, Matilda, was latin-litterate, as were her brothers;
Richard I knew Latin well enough to crack jokes in the it, the Black Prince and the John of Gaunt were both energetic patrons of Latin, French and English literature; Elizabeth I translated classical works into English, James I was extremely well educated, and authored, "A Counterblast against Tobaco" while King....

The list goes on, and on, and on.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Oh indeed, and more. King Alfred is credited with translating the Latin philosopher Boethius, among others, and the daughter of William the Bastard, Matilda, was latin-litterate, as were her brothers;
Richard I knew Latin well enough to crack jokes in the it, the Black Prince and the John of Gaunt were both energetic patrons of Latin, French and English literature; Elizabeth I translated classical works into English, James I was extremely well educated, and authored, "A Counterblast against Tobaco" while King....

The list goes on, and on, and on.
Heh you could write an entire book just of summarizations :beam:.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

James I was extremely well educated, and authored, "A Counterblast against Tobaco"
Shame on you Jimmy! :whip:
.

[HoreTore]

Indeed, most of the replies so far have been all the same idealized thing :laugh4:. All in all, I would prefer a Shaftesbury or a Conde over a Bernard Maddoff or a Bill Gates.

Also aristocracy "illiterate"? WTH? The British "aristocracy" had a solid etiquette and superb political skills, complemented of course by their higher literacy and knowledge than the rest of the mass. For centuries it was them who patronized the arts and the letters, and not just for the knack of profit and consumer appeal like a CEO would, but of taste. A generalization still, but a valid one.

Turn the clock back a little more. Say 13th century. Back then it was a shame for "noble knights" to know math or read, that was for others to do...

And I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that our economies shot through the roof at the same time we abolished the aristocracy....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Turn the clock back a little more. Say 13th century. Back then it was a shame for "noble knights" to know math or read, that was for others to do...

And I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that our economies shot through the roof at the same time we abolished the aristocracy....

Maybe this was true for Norway, it is not for England. Certainly it has been said in the past, but that was so much guff put about during the Renaissance, along with the belief that Kings only bathed once a year and everyone thought the world was flat before Columbus.

Certainly, universities were the preserve of priests, but education was not. When one considers the cost of books, one must acknowledge the great store the aristorcacy put by learning, as evidenced by the libraries listed in their wills.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Turn the clock back a little more. Say 13th century. Back then it was a shame for "noble knights" to know math or read, that was for others to do...

And I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that our economies shot through the roof at the same time we abolished the aristocracy....
What? Have you done any research or read any serious history in the books? The British never "abolished" the aristocracy or the monarchy and yet were the forerunners of industrialization. The French, however, and here that comparison works really well, went through bloody years of tyranny, followed by a failed despotism and then a hundred years of stagnation in population and economic growth relative to countries that retained their Monarchies and their aristocracies like Germany and Britain.

NOT that the correlation between both establishes causation, but only that if your correlation indeed had any grain of truth, it would work against you anyway.

Also 13th Century and Knights did not read? WTH did you read that? Apart from the examples above, court poetry and culture was the only secular art in Europe that existed in these years. Many kings were knowledgeable in history and/or sponsored people who knew it, examples being Charlemagne, who was eager to learn how to read (and whose courtier Einhard wrote a history based on Suetonius), Charles IV Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II Holy Roman Emperor (patron of pretty much all Southern Italian culture and writer of a book on falcon hunting). If anything the average aristocrat was far better educated than the rest of the populace from the very early days.