Printable View
You'd get my vote. Of course, according to Serbian custom of corruption, I expect to be compensated if royalist faction wins. Nothing too high profile, let's say position of minister of treasury...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
She doesn't have anything on her. Now there's a woman who can change man's opinion completely...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
You also created constitutional monarchy, and that first. Not to mention tyranny, Legalised autocracy...Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
The British Monarchy is, I think, often loved and loathed in equal measure.
The current Royal House is positively hated in Wales, Scotland is ambivilant at best and a significant element of the English rural population still want their land back after 1066.
Nevertheless, it has been this way for 800 years+.
Some Scots are very pro-monarchy. Strangely, its a working class thing, to do with the immigration of Ulster Protestants when they came over with their more numerous Catholic counterparts. 'Airdrie Loyal', 'Larkall Loyal' etc, football has helped to maintain the tradition as much as anything (yes, this is the only country in the world where people base their political affilliations on which football team they support). I'm not kidding on that bracketed point, the surge in membership of the Orange Order in Scotland has been attritbuted to the rivalry between Rangers and Celtic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
"Commie bastards forced the Romanian Royal Family away": Nothing to do with the fact that they were allied with nazi during the WW2 so?:laugh4::laugh4:
Judging by the Soviet's general treatment of their 'allies', I don't think it would have mattered either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
King Michael was extremely popular for driving the pro-Nazi Iron guard out of government. But then the soviets came.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Just for referance. The real Iron Guard (The Legion of Archangel Michael) created by Corneliu Codreanu (the fascist movement; closer to the Italian model; mainly popular amongst the peasants and extremely Orthodox one) under the leadership of the extreme Sima was destroyed by the German forces in winter of 1941. Marshal Antonescu (the King was in the shadow of the Marshal) was more moderate leader and therefore a better partner to bring a stability for the Germans. King Michael of Romania finally decided to remove the Marshal in 1944 and imprisoned him switching side to the Allies. There were even rumours about any plans of Stalin keeping the monarchy in the new communist order in Romania since the King seemed to be tame. Yet, the following events showed Stalin King Michael was a dangerous opponent of the new order and this put the end of his rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Good. Very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
The only good king is a dead king.
God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Maybe you'd like to exchange your priciples for a concience one day.
This is the real Glorious Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
OK I'll stop being such a Hun...
Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I can't believe why some people, who otherwise are democratic, choose to support feudal overlords.
The royal families are a bunch of inbred murderers. Better to be done with the lot of them.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That is sooo awsome, you are talking about Stalin offing the rightful king of a nation (you clearly don't care what the people thought of him, you know best) and then prattle off some rubbish about dictators being killed is all good!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Kings are neither dictators, nor tyrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A King is proclaimed by the people and rules through consent, and nowhere has this been more true than Scandanavia. Kings do not usually maintain large standing armies, heavily garrison their own domains, or employ huge secrect police networks.
Granted, there have been many bad Kings, but Europe's current crop of "elected"politicians are little better, sometimes worse.
Monarchy is the most popular system, ever. It can't be that bad.
In any case, none of this justifies the killing of a king. Generally when you kill a King you get something worse. Take a look at England or France, for a start.
In fact, monarchy excludes the exteremism. It's very hard to achieve a dictatorship in a monarchy. This is their greatest advantage + absolute monarchies are almost non-existent. The King/Queen interferes in the policy using his moral authority amongst the population and has limited rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
------
Killing a King is indeed a madness. The King/Queen is a symbol of the nation and demonstrates the continuity with the past. Even Stalin allowed the Eastern European monarchs to withdraw in exile in Western Europe. He did not kill any of them.
The hypocrisy, O the hypocrisy!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
C'mon guys, don't burst his bubble. :wall:
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Alright, you lost me.
What do you think a coronation is?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Look at what happens in a contested succession, it only comes to bloodshed when it's too close to call.
True, foriegn regimes such as the Normans in England mess things up but by and large the principle is the same. Rarely do kings (or queens) sieze power. Look at William of Orange, invited to become king. He brought an army in case Charles wanted to contest the point, ultimately Charles was unable to drum up support.
That doesn't make it neat and tidy, but the reality is that a king or queen rules by consent.
Must.... resist.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
In any case, talking about 'kings' as if they only come in one variety is stupid. You could have an absolutist monarch who thinks he is the Sun God incarnate, or on the other extreme you could have some powerless dummy like they had in Poland-Lithuania, while an oligarchy of nobles hold all the real power. King Billy was a good compromise.
I still prefer a republic though. :yes:
Indeed. The bad ones are living, thats why they are bad. :inquisitive:Quote:
Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.
A coronation sure as hell isn't the people proclaiming their Monarch, unless of course you expect every person to take an oath of loyalty. It is the Monarch taking over from their predecessor - and anything beyond that is just pomp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Let's forget about Stalin and define rightful in this case. What does it mean? Person A is a rightful ruler of a country by being born???Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
"Hey mate, you've finished three universities, you speak 17 languages and your IQ is 2584267 but we're gonna have this guy as head of the state. He barely finished one university (with connections), can't speak one language properly and his IQ went down the toilet because it's a bad idea when cousins marry, but he's a rightful ruler..."
Thanks but no thanks. Even if it's just for show as all monarch in democratic European countries are, I still detest the principle behind it...
Cept he's still alive, 87 years and still kicking. He got the boot not the bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A swing and a miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
I would love to see Stalin whacked as much as I'd love to see any King whacked. Probably more too. A lot more. And where did I praise Stalin, if I may ask? I said it was good when dictators are whacked. Stalin was a dictator. Just how is it possible to not understand that I think it would've good to have Stalin whacked?
If the people loves their King so, much then, HEY, I have a suggestion! ELECT THE BUGGER! We've already invented democracy, it honestly shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to elect someone(without rigging, of course..). Let him abdicate and then let him try to get elected. If he does, I wouldn't have anything against it(not more than any other politician anyway). I don't care about what the people thinks? You're the one saying that the people shouldn't get a say in who's ruling them, I'm saying let the people decide!
Right. I'm going to ignore this one because of historical and political ignorance. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That inbred guy who can't even speak or read correctly is supposed to symbolize me? Please, someone kill him soon... Or me. The bright side is that he's unlikely to live for much longer, due the extreme number of hereditary diseases the guy has due to inbreeding....Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
I'll say it again, the only good king is a dead king. I can tolerate a bound and gagged king, though. If your King is so fantastic and everybody loves him, elect him already.
There's no real pro-monarchy movement here that I know of, probably because the anti-monarchy movement is almost non-existent as well. Most people don't care about the royal family as long as they manage to stay out of the media.
I'm technicly a "republican" but since my favoured model is that of Germany, it wouldn't make that much of a difference so it's not that important to me.
Naturally, a monarch is either proclaimed by the people or by a foreign power. In any case, a ruler rules with the mandate of the people, who have the ability to remove him. You seem to act like a King is no better than a Dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You began this with a response about Stalin removing a king from his throne, sorry but was it just bad timing?
"Any King whacked", oh we do love a bit of "off with his head" and dramatics aye? Lets go and murder, oh sorry execute, the king of Spain, better yet, the Queen of the U.K, what a bag, putting all of us under here boot and forcing us to live like peasants:furious3:
You should see it HoreTore, what she does to us, I'm living in a mud hut farming mud all day, its a joke... yes it is:yes:
Well, that's all nice and good, but that don't make the bugger rightful in terms of being king does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
A King is rightful because of what the rules say, funnily enough the rules tend to bend a bit when swords are drawn.
"detest the principle", well to be honest I don't have much time for principles in politics, in general principles are bollox and every politician has few extra sets handy for the right occasion.
What rules are you reffering to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
The rules of succession which pertain to that particular monarchy and state.Quote:
Originally Posted by lenin96
Of coarse, they sometimes get disregarded and people get their heads chopped off.