The Current Status of Monarchism.

Can any of our non-US members tell me on how the various monarchist groups are doing in their respective countries? Monarchist movements interest me in their political ideas.

For example, the Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance supports a democratic monarchy, but with a twist. Since a Hapsburg monarch would not fit in well with just Austria, they propose a confederation of the former countries in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, all under a united parliament, but still retain local sovereignty (Think U.S. States) while the Emperor would be their sovereign (Think British monarch in countries like Canada, Australia).

I, for one, find the idea of a democratic monarchy interesting. A monarch lies with no specific party, as oppossed to a president for example, and is supposed to represent his or her country's people. A monarch is a figure that all people of a nation can rally behind.

So, international Orgahs, what has happened with the monarchist movements in your countries?

The cool thing about constitutional monarchy is that your steel mills, textile mills, mines and steam docks don't give negative contentment penalties anymore. For this reason alone I am prepared to nominate Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to become our figureheads of state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The cool thing about constitutional monarchy is that your steel mills, textile mills, mines and steam docks don't give negative contentment penalties anymore. For this reason alone I am prepared to nominate Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to become our figureheads of state.

---

Brangelina! Brangelina! Brangelina!

Quote:

---

So, international Orgahs, what has happened with the monarchist movements in your countries?

---

It ended rather suddenly in 1649. The King had a haircut and all was lost.

I wish there was monarchist movement but they keep sitting

Our monarchists over here are somewhat strange .
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...le-320497.html

I wish our Republican election hadn't been rigged so that I could honestly say I didn't live under a Monarchy now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I wish our Republican election hadn't been rigged so that I could honestly say I didn't live under a Monarchy now...

---

I sympathize, I really do. About the only thing that stays my republican hand is the prospect of a President Blair or Brown or god forbid Mandelson. Just look at the characters the French and Americans have had recently as their head of state. It make one's blood run cold, what, what. :sweatdrop:

We dont have any. Atleast as an official movement. So i guess they are doing fine and dandy as they do not exist.~D

Just to be serious for a minute, I'll attempt to answer the OP.

I don't know about the other constitutional monarchies in Europe and beyond but there isn't a Monarchy Movement in the UK. The whole point is that it's apolitical. Yes there are people in the UK that adore the queen but it's not organized in any way.

Brenda's a figurehead. Nothing more nothing less. I have more real political power than her. I get to vote. She is effectively told what to do by her ministers. A rubber stamp tis all she is. Things might change when Arthur inherits the Imperial Crown of State as he's got a bit of a big gob.

I expect that the reaon the monarchy is still going on in the U.K is because we are all so bloody gloomy, a President would cost more and he might be NU-LAB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

So, international Orgahs, what has happened with the monarchist movements in your countries?

---

They seem to have lost their heads...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IA

About the only thing that stays my republican hand is the prospect of a President Blair or Brown or god forbid Mandelson. Just look at the characters the French and Americans have had recently as their head of state. It make one's blood run cold, what, what

---

A French/US presidential model is not the only alternative to a hereditary head of state. What's more, contrary to monarchist scaremongering, this model is so alien to British/Australian customs that it is the least likely replacement for hereditary monarchy.


Giorgio Napolitano and Horst Köhler are the current presidents of Italy and Germany. People have never heard of them because they fulfill only the ceremonial powers of head of state. This model, I think, would best suit the political parliamentary traditions of the UK, Canada, Australia.

One can go one further too: Switzerland has a Conseil fédéral. This council of seven people functions collectively as head of state.

Oh I know that Louis, Ireland also springs to mind. Somehow though I get the feeling that Mssrs. Blair/Brown/Cameron et al would see this as too good an opportunity to let pass.

History of Monarchism in Greece.


We created democracy. We do not have kings. Some bloody foreign German-Dutch inbred people tried to convince us otherwise and became our monarchy for a while. We sent them to live in London and good riddance to them. They can now inbreed peacefully and grow their tails as long as they like.

Quote:

---

So, international Orgahs, what has happened with the monarchist movements in your countries?

---

It is mostly a group of old men with Altzheimer's although not all of them really count because some probably think there is still a king...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Oh I know that Louis, Ireland also springs to mind. Somehow though I get the feeling that Mssrs. Blair/Brown/Cameron et al would see this as too good an opportunity to let pass.

---

They would too, wouldn't they? Cheeky bastards. :wall:

Oh well. Always remember: no matter how insane the UK, one needs only to cross the channel to go one worse. Your PM's dream of presidency. Our presidents dream of being monarchs.

Little Sun Kings, the lot of them. They get away with it too. What's more, they are expected to. With the exception of Sarkozy, French presidents are of a very tall physical stature. Aloof of character. Refined, even affected, in manners. Building Grand Works in Paris to leave a physical mark. (Not that I mind the last, but it is 'doggy syndrome')


Fun fact: De Gaulle, Giscard d'Estaing, Mitterand, Sarkozy are all nobility, or have a major noble element in their family line. That's right, France prefers to elect noblemen to the throne. Uh, I mean, to the presidency.
Pompidou and Chirac are the only elected presidents of the Fifth Republic of overwhelming bourgeois origin.

Quote:

---

Ireland also springs to mind

---

Ireland. I forgot about them. I simply can't keep up with all this devolution in Britain.

Since they've had de facto independence since 1922 I understand how hard it is to keep up. :laugh4:

Not much a movement here, support dropped to about 62% though.

The main party in power for about 70% of the time (Social democrats) have the abolishment of monarchy in their party program. They never touch that issue. :book:

Bulgaria:

Titular Tzar: Simeon II Saxe-Coburg Gotha . Born 1937. Ruled between 1943-1946 (he was minor then). Prime Minister (the first ex-monarch to become a Prime-Minister) between 2001-2005. His political party still participates in the ruling coalition (2005-2009) but has lost much of its sympathisers. There are even rumours it will not enter in the next Parliament.

Even between 2001-2005 the idea of restoring the monarchy was not seriously commented. Many Bulgarians were sceptic towards changing of the consitution and restoring the monarchy.

The US had a monarch once.

I, for one, fondly miss Emperor Norton. He was a pretty cool guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

The US had a monarch once.

I, for one, fondly miss Emperor Norton. He was a pretty cool guy.

---

Never heard about it... :dizzy2:

It's true, and he was a good king. As a judge ruled when he was arrested for the crime of lunacy: "Norton has shed no blood, robbed no one, and despoiled no country, which is more than can be said for most fellows in the king line."

Ours decided to run to Britain. Apparently, it was cool to be a monarch there and people here wanted to kill him (who said that communists were all bad?). They've even given him a room in the hotel in London. Now the bastard wants to be a king again and he can't even speak Serbian properly. He's down here trying to speak Serbian with an Oxford accent and everyone's going "what the **** is he saying???" - "Wait, I think I understand some words. Baby Jesus... trees... blood... last emperor of China... Masai warriors... Oh, I give up!"

According to some polls a few years ago, about 5% of the people would want Serbia to be a monarchy again.

"Sarkozy": Hungarian one. Doesn't count...:beam:
"He's down here trying to speak Serbian" Apparently mine is evenbetter than his... Can I apply for the job? I even probably lived longer in Serbia. I was there when it was still Jugoslavija the Federation one...:inquisitive:

Liz is doing just fine in Britain.

Liz is doing great, and Norton was a very cool guy.

Our king is bound and gagged, and everyone is quite happy that way.

Nobody really wants to abolish him, except on a principal basis, but nobody wants him to ever say anything either. And since he can't legally talk, we're doing fine....

His daughter and her husband, on the other hand.... :thumbsdown:

Commie bastards forced the Romanian Royal Family away. :thumbsdown:

My repulsion for communism cannot be even measured. And yes, I am a monarchist.

I think the problem is that too many people don't have a queen like this. :smitten:

So true Shinseikhaan. :beam:

Coincidentally I was at a debate about the future of the monarchy today. Where one of the debaters presented som statistics.

In favour of the monarchy 66%, republicans 22 %. The percentage of republicans is almost the same as the percentage of votes against the monarchy in 1905. The support of the monarchy has risen some after a low-point in the late 90's.

What is interesting is a shift in who supports republicanism. Before republicans were more a rural phenonomen. But now the typical republican is a male, 40-60, with a high income, urban dweller and has a university education. Ie the elite in society.

(The typical, royalist is a female 60+ , low income, little education, and from the countryside.)

That the monarchy has lost some of its fundation can also be illustrated that the newspaper that has traditionally been the strongest supporter of the monarchy, (Aftenposten), has all but abandoned its covarage of the royal family and its program of duties.

The debaters made some "predictions" about the future of the monarchy. The royalist in the panel predicted the end of the monarchy in 2063, when the princess would have accended the throne if her father lives as long or longer than the rest of the family, he predicted that it would end in this year if the princess arrives at the conclusion that a life in a glass cage isn't for her.

And that was basically the conclusion of one of the other debaters, that it would either end because the publics opinin changed enough in favour of a republic (seeing as socity's elite is more republican than other people) or that the children decide that they want to live a normal life.

The current status of the monarchy in Norway is that a majority is in favour of it, but that it is unlikely that we are still a monarchy in 2100.

To HoreTore

Quote:

---

His daughter and her husband, on the other hand....

---

Hehe, one of the debaters were Carl-Erik Grimstad, who argued with Ari in January, and he really dislikes him, he would not even utter his name...

He showed a picture of him and basically painted his as an antichrist who is the complete opposite of what the royal house is supposed to represent (dignity)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Sarkozy
"He's down here trying to speak Serbian" Apparently mine is evenbetter than his... Can I apply for the job? I even probably lived longer in Serbia. I was there when it was still Jugoslavija the Federation one...:inquisitive:

---

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 Shinseikhaan

I think the problem is that too many people don't have a queen like this. :smitten:

---

She doesn't have anything on her. Now there's a woman who can change man's opinion completely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

History of Monarchism in Greece.


We created democracy. We do not have kings. Some bloody foreign German-Dutch inbred people tried to convince us otherwise and became our monarchy for a while. We sent them to live in London and good riddance to them. They can now inbreed peacefully and grow their tails as long as they like.




It is mostly a group of old men with Altzheimer's although not all of them really count because some probably think there is still a king...

---

You also created constitutional monarchy, and that first. Not to mention tyranny, Legalised autocracy...

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+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

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.

"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"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

"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:

---

King Michael was extremely popular for driving the pro-Nazi Iron guard out of government. But then the soviets came.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

King Michael was extremely popular for driving the pro-Nazi Iron guard out of government. But then the soviets came.....

---

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 Stephen Asen

Yet, the following events showed Stalin King Michael was a dangerous opponent of the new order and this put the end of his rule.

---

Good. Very good.

The only good king is a dead king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Good. Very good.

The only good king is a dead king.

---

God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".

Maybe you'd like to exchange your priciples for a concience one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".

Maybe you'd like to exchange your priciples for a concience one day.

---

This is the real Glorious Revolution.

OK I'll stop being such a Hun...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".

---

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

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.

---

Kings are neither dictators, nor tyrants.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

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.

---

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.
------
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

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.

---

The hypocrisy, O the hypocrisy!

C'mon guys, don't burst his bubble. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A King is proclaimed by the people

---

:inquisitive:

Alright, you lost me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:inquisitive:

Alright, you lost me.

---

What do you think a coronation is?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

Must.... resist.....

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:

Quote:

---

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

---

Indeed. The bad ones are living, thats why they are bad. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What do you think a coronation is?

---

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 Default the Magyar

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

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:

---

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???

"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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Good. Very good.

The only good king is a dead king.

---

Cept he's still alive, 87 years and still kicking. He got the boot not the bullet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

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:

---

A swing and a miss.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Kings are neither dictators, nor tyrants.

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.

---

Right. I'm going to ignore this one because of historical and political ignorance. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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.
------
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.

---

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....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:inquisitive:

Alright, you lost 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 HoreTore

A swing and a miss.

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!

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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???

"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...

---

Well, that's all nice and good, but that don't make the bugger rightful in terms of being king does it?
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

A King is rightful because of what the rules say, funnily enough the rules tend to bend a bit when swords are drawn.

---

What rules are you reffering to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

What rules are you reffering to?

---

The rules of succession which pertain to that particular monarchy and state.
Of coarse, they sometimes get disregarded and people get their heads chopped off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

The rules of succession which pertain to that particular monarchy and state.
Of coarse, they sometimes get disregarded and people get their heads chopped off.

---

But can you tell me why we have these rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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..."

---

Hey now, let's leave McBroon out of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

But can you tell me why we have these rules?

---

Why? Well in the U.K it is enshrined in law, the reason for that being the history of the U.K. Which is very, very long.

But basically we have rules of successon because it usually saves alot of strife when a King dies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Why? Well in the U.K it is enshrined in law, the reason for that being the history of the U.K. Which is very, very long.

But basically we have rules of successon because it usually saves alot of strife when a King dies.

---

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

---

Yes, indeed it would be, I cannot disagree, its just that such a system of government has not as of yet been invented.

Well thats true, but we have invented some nice prototypes.

Now someone help me merge Meritocracy with Communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Now someone help me merge Meritocracy with Communism.

---

Merimunism? Commitocracy?

Meri-Communism? Less creative but tells people what it is.

Communism is by it's nature anti-meritcratic, which is why it doesn't work.

HoreTore, care to point out where I'm so deficient?

I know I didn't make up the Terror, or the martil Law, repression, religious enforcements, or suspension of democracy under Cromwell.

He was a Tyrant.

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

I'm also very sure that from the time of Plato and Aristotle the "Good King" has repeatedly been put foward as the best form of government.

Political thought advanced a bit in the several thousand years after Plato. Anyway, good or bad monarch - doesn't matter since they don't have any power. They're there just for show. The idea of someone being born into a position is contrary to meritocracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I know I didn't make up the Terror, or the martil Law, repression, religious enforcements, or suspension of democracy under Cromwell.

He was a Tyrant.

---

OK, now you are doing this deliberately. Why do you think Cromwell abolished the Parliament in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Communism is by it's nature anti-meritcratic, which is why it doesn't work.

---

If something works or not is decided by if it is mericratic or not then Monarchies can not work as the leader is decided by birth not merit, and the same with Democracy as it's more of a popularity contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

---

Aren't Monarchies and Democracy exclusive from each other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

OK, now you are doing this deliberately. Why do you think Cromwell abolished the Parliament in the first place?

---

They stopped his expenses? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

They stopped his expenses? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

---

In a way, yes. The decided to cut the pay to the New Model Army, despite the fact that there were wars being fought against the other two of the three kingdoms. Also, the dominant faction at the time had been plotting to restore the King, and had declared war on the Netherlands, despite the fact that they were a Calvinist nation and Cromwell had been planning to allow exiled Jews to return from Amsterdam for the first time since the 13th Century. Trade rights had overruled the whole principles of the Commonwealth.

In any case, the Army was much more reflective of the wishes of the common people anyway, Parliament still had a pretty archaic structure that meant you had to be fairly well off to vote. Cromwell had been trying to reform it, but never really got beyond the planning phase due to the constant wars being fought.

He was pretty brutal towrds the Levellers as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

He was pretty brutal towrds the Levellers as well.

---

He was sympathetic with them. Look at the Putney debates for example, throwing off the Norman yoke etc. I don't understand why politicians today can't conduct themselves so respectfully. Heck, the first thing Cromwell did when he took his seat in Parliament was to campaign for the release of the Leveller leader, John Lillburne.

I'm just a revolting colonial, so what do I know? Folks have asked "By what right does a King rule?".

Wasn't it, in ancient times, the right of the sword? You're the strongest dude in the area, with the largest following = you get to lord it over the locals. Kingdoms weren't all that huge back 2,000 - 3,000 years ago (ignoring empires).

Then, with religion (and the theory of an interventionist God) getting involved, "the strongest dude" must ipso facto have been picked by God to rule (according to the holy guys), hence his vetting via coronation. If God didn't want him to be King, He wouldn't allow the coronation.

In the big picture of history, Kings have been usually acclaimed, and populations happy with them. It's when they died that things got sticky.

So it comes down to: how do you change rulers? How often, and by what means, and under what circumstances?

The old way: Strong guy gets to rule for life (NB life expectancy 35-50), then the folks who have his blood in them, on the probability that the good times will continue, god willing.

The new way: we understand blood and god and individual consent differently now. And leaders get their right to rule, not from god, or a strong right arm, but from we, the ruled. And we've come to see that, no matter how good a ruler starts out, after a time in power, he won't be as good as when he started, and needs to be replaced.

The new way may not be any more accurate or correct than the old way, but it's how we understand stuff now. If people want to call their head guy king, or president, or chief decider, or number one kahuna, what do I care? Everybody has a big boss, it seems. I don't get the big opposition to monarchy, other than they sometimes don't get picked popularly.

For the point Kukri made about God, remember that Kings can still betray the 'order established by God' just like anyone else. For example if a King abuses his powers to become absolutist, then it would be justified to rebel against him. There are a plethora of resistance theories based around such situations which emerged in early modern Europe, which laid the foundations for the ideas of natural law etc, from which many government systems today stem.

I like the monarchy in sweden. As do most Swedes.

The king, in effect, has no power what so ever. He happily travels around representing Sweden. Some in the US and abroad seem to think the royal houses still have some kind of power, while this in fact is extremly rare.

About inbreeding... Contrary to popular beliefs the kings throughout the ages have had very little problems hooking up with babes. So the blood line is usually pretty strong.

Madeleine the princess of Sweden is a good example, she's pretty much a babe if you haven't noticed. Inbred?


EDIT: The reason I support the monarchy is that it pays off. Lots of tourists flock around the royal castle and bring revenues to the capital.

The French murdered Louis XVI, but this doesn't stop tourists from seeing the Versailles palace. Besides, I'm pretty sure people would visit the White House too if it was open for tourists.

A president with mostly ceremonial duties can do the same things as a constitutional monarch. And without the outrage factor in the rare occasion that the head of state does have a modicum of power. The Dutch queen appoints mediators for coalition forming after the election for example. And if I recall correctly the Luxembourgers recently had some trouble when the archduke refused to sign an act of parliament.