Governement Types

[Raz]

Will we be able to change from Democratic governments to Monarchies and back again? And change from a Grand Duchy type government to a Totalitarianistic Empire? If that is a ligit form of government... Have I even got my facts right?
But anyway, that feature would be really cool. Like you are playing as the English and all your heirs die out and so does your king, you only have a princess remaining and so you become a Queendom instead of a Kingdom... Well, not the greatest example, but you get what I mean.

[pevergreen]

The last example, I do hope will be able to happen, but I doubt it.

AFAIK, yes to your question.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I think it be cool to do that really!

[rajpoot]

They did not have a Elizabeth in M2TW, I doubt they'll have a Victoria in ETW.......I mean it'll really change nothing apart from the fact that your faction leader's pic will be a woman and maybe you'll lose a strong cavalry force in the field.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know its just out the time-frame, but I'd love to have a Cromwellian-style revolution in Britain, execute the monarchs, lead the parliament in civil war, then convert everyone to Puritans!

Hopefully thats how switching to a Republic will work, since IIRC the three gov't types are Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, and Republic.

[PBI]

I too am curious about how governments will work in Empires. After all, won't switching to a Republic imply executing all your family members? I'm thinking maybe there will be some system whereby the family tree is replaced by something like the family tree for the Teutonic Order in Kingdoms, with the "family members" representing various offices of the state.

But certainly it should be possible to have female monarchs, indeed the game should have Queen Anne ascending to the British throne within 2 years of the start. I believe that by this time it was no longer the norm for rulers to lead their troops into battle, so I can't see any reason why this would be a problem.

[Furious Mental]

Totalitarianism, if you accept the concept, is really a 20th century phenomenon.

[Raz]

Many consider the first totalitarian regimes to have begun in the 20th century, which include the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Cuba, ...... However some argue that totalitarianism has existed centuries prior, such as in ancient China under the political leadership of Prime Minister Li Si who helped the Qin dynasty unify China. Li Si adopted the political philosophy of Legalism as the ruling philosophical thought of China and restricted political activities and destroyed all literature and killed scholars who did not support Legalism. Totalitarianism was also used by the Spartan state in Ancient Greece. Its “educational system” was part of the totalitarian military society. The oligarchy running the state machine dictated every aspect of life, including the rearing of children.

Disagree, and I will burn all of your reading material.
But true, it was never used during the timeframe of Empires, but it would be interesting in game... "Your massive empire is on the brink of self-destruction, it's going to collapse in on itself as soon as you press the "End Turn" button, you can either accept this fate or kill every single person who disagrees with your regime" - sure, since half of your population is now dead, you won't be raking in profits from those farmers in the country-side, but at least your empire isn't going to collapse.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wonder if there will be an option in how exactly government changes come about. For example as an Absolute Monarch, I wonder how public pressure for a Constitutional Monarchy would be represented. It would be nice if you had a message saying that an uprising was imminent, and you could either accept or deny the demands to become a Constitutional Monarchy.

Changing to a Republic would be more difficult, since I would guess there would be no monarch, and maybe no royal family at all.

I really hope government changes could come about through civil wars and not just the royal family deciding to terminate themselves. I want to see uprisings damnit!

[Polemists]

While I think it would be interesting to see the classic Nobles versus Peasant revoultions when you switch from Monarchy to Republic, I think realistically it will just be a click and then you get a dialogue pop up with a picture. Maybe if your lucky a video.

I'd like to have civil wars, and revoultions but somehow I think only the historic ones will occur. (e.g. american, french, etc. No Prussian revoultion.)

Just my thoughts.

[Furious Mental]

According to the recent IGN interview, you can govern in an absolutist way but it will stifle innovation and make your citizens leave, e.g. to the Americas.

[Rhyfelwyr]

According to the recent IGN interview, you can govern in an absolutist way but it will stifle innovation and make your citizens leave, e.g. to the Americas.

I like the sound of that, will go and have a look at that now.

EDIT: "For example, we have dragoon units -- mounted men that you can order to dismount and fire and attack the enemy as infantry. Then you can order them to mount up again and chase across the field on horseback."

[Pantsalot]

Apparently according to the interview, If u r a bad leader in ur homeland then
people will leave in masses to go to the colonised lands. I believe there is
only going to be 4 governments u can choose from as I've heard, these will
probably be Monarch, Democracy, Republic (& the third might be something
like Dictatorship, absolute monarch etc.)
I would go in favour of Monarch. Democracy sucks
& apparently when u be a monarch u get more easier control over ur empire
but later people will demand a change in government, so if u were to change
to a democracy u'd have some limited control but ur people would be more
happy.

[BananaBob]

They did not have a Elizabeth in M2TW, I doubt they'll have a Victoria in ETW.......I mean it'll really change nothing apart from the fact that your faction leader's pic will be a woman and maybe you'll lose a strong cavalry force in the field.

IIRC they said that they would be including female monarchs, referencing Queen Anne and Empress Maria Theresa.

[pevergreen]

Source? That is worthy of the Summary Thread

[RLucid]

I know its just out the time-frame, but I'd love to have a Cromwellian-style revolution in Britain, execute the monarchs, lead the parliament in civil war, then convert everyone to Puritans!

Actually that'd make quite a good multi-faction game presuming you're thinking of time The_Third_English_Civil_War1 but I wonder about how widespread the marketing appeal would be, when most think of Cavaliers & Roundheads. For some reason Cromwell has PR issues to due to need to robustly deal with resisting towns, to deter populations from enduring sieges.

[Pantsalot]

[QUOTE=Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]I know its just out the time-frame, but I'd love to have a Cromwellian-style revolution in Britain, execute the monarchs, lead the parliament in civil war, then convert everyone to Puritans!
QUOTE]

If u like seeing that happen then ur not Scottish.. stop posing..
Y would a Scotsmen like to see a far that people become puritans
because they h8 the Scottish king & the Scottish state religion &
Y would a Scotsmen like to execute their own Scottish bloodlined monarch
& wish to remain as a Republic even though almost the entire of the Scottish
people supported the monarch, fought & died to keep him in power???

Change ur name, ...

lol

[RLucid]

Perhaps he doesn't like Bishops! The Scots were allies of parliament earlier on, and IIRC they fell out with parliament after they won due to pay arrears etc. and switched sides, fearing the new religious zeal of a radicalised England. Wasn't it Scots who handed Charles over for trial?

Y would a Scotsmen like to execute their own Scottish bloodlined monarch

For money. At end of Round 2 they sold their "bloodlined" monarch to the English Parlimentary forces for filthy lucre. Charles was clearly wanted for treason against his own ppl (by declaring & then perpetuating the civil war rather than settling after Round 1); so basically execution was likely if not inevitable in the circumstances. Romatic isn't it?

[Pantsalot]

I don't research up on the ENGLISH civil war, I just hear y it happened
& search up on some of the battles, which r commonly Scots-Loyalists vs
English-Parliamentrists, note that this time I wasn't just searching for Scots
only battles.. (& btw I'm not being biased or prejudice in this sentence, the
Scots won each of the battles I read up on.. 4)

[RLucid]

Dunbar.

[Lusitani]

IMO MedI was very good in dealing with royal ties with other kingdoms that would eventually lead to claims to foreign crowns. Civil wars also happened with the possibility of even choosing sides. So if you polish that and add the possibility of having a ruling queen, i suppose that is fine in what comes to monarchies.

PS: you can just exhile a king or queen ...no need to execute them you regicide bunch :P

[fenir]

Rex,

Just a Small note.

When a Princess, takes the throne, she does not rule as a Queen. none can, it's illegal.

Salic Law.

A Princess, as in this case we use Queen Elizabeth, I or II doesn't matter.

She is Crowned Rex, not Regina. King, not Queen, As a queen cannot rule. Queen Elizabeth Rules as King Elizabeth. (Technically In her Fathers name, though this may have changed, I cannot remember).
So a Kingdom, never changes to A Queendom. There is no such thing. And only a King can Rule. Hence Princess Elizabeth, was crowned King Of England, Scotland, (Technically Ireland), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and about 40 other Countries.

Some Countries, like the Netherlands, the Queen can rule as a queen. But that is a fairly modern change. Whereas the Anglo-Celtic Westminister System, is a very old and developed Democracy.
So retains many of the inherent features of the past, that do not impact, or try to enhance, the system of Government. The system itself, is the Basis of all modern Democracies. From the USA Republic, system, Congress and House of Reps. Eg: House of Lords, and House of Commons. To any other system in the world today.
Hence the British have had one of the longest and most stable forms of government, and development of any nation in history.
And it all Started with the Manga Carta. Or Great Charter Enforeced Upon King John By the Lords of England and Scotland in 1215, and again in the 1280's.
This Document is Considered to be the Founding Document of Modern Democracy. And I think you can Still view it in london.
So important is it, that the only time in history, that is has moved Countries, was in World War II, to Fort Knox, USA. That is how Important it is.
IN 1263 Simon De Montfort(the Elder), Earl OF Leicester, an English Lord leed the Lords of England Against Henry the III, leeding to the next big Change, the First Recorded, Directly Elected Governement Since Athens 2000 Years Before. It is considered, that he is the Father of Modern Democracy. (Oringally this was Lead By the Earl of Gloucester).
So important in this, that in the USA house of Reps, his Relief Hangs to this today.
And his statue is in the Clock Tower in Leicester.
There is a University named after him.... et cetera.
One of his Captains, Roger Godberd, Is the man that the story of Robin hood, is Based upon.
unlike, the story of King Arthur, the robin hood is based on real events.
King Arthur is a Story made up by and English man, having an extend holiday in Cornwall in ~1428AD.


Kind of Funny really, it went from a Charter to Protect the People from a Bad king, to a Charter to Protect the people From politicians.
The next Big Change in Modern Domcracy happen in the 1600's.
That is the English Civil War. Which really was the British Iles Civil War. It is here that true representation came about. And it is Oliver Cromwells Reforms that the USA's system is based upon.

Anyway, i yakked far to much.



NOTE: I do hope CA does follow the pathetic path of placing Republics higher than any other form of government.
And I hope they DO NOT, foget to include, the Constitutional monarchies with representative Governments.
Espeically when they are the basis of all modern Democracies. I will be most upset.
My Reasons, and facts are above.

Sincerely

fenir

[PBI]

I'm pretty sure the Salic Law doesn't apply in the UK, hence why we've had a relatively large number of female monarchs. I've certainly never heard anyone refer to Elizabeth II as "King Elizabeth".

At least, Wiki seems to think it doesn't apply in the UK, hence why the thrones of Great Britain and Hannover were separated after the death of William IV; Victoria ascended to the throne of the UK but was ineligible to rule Hannover since it observed the Salic Law.

Otherwise interesting post though.

[fenir]

Then you need to Read the rules then.........
It is very easy to check what i have posted. Check the laws. Ask.

And yes "hence why we've had a relatively large number of female monarchs". Yes, WE HAVE . :)

You can also send an e-mail though the Royal Website, and ask that way. There is a link to the Public Information office.

*** Naughty****
ANd How dare you quote the wiki, thats a load of crap written by every tom dick and harry. Thats like quoting a movie as a referrence. Disgusting.
please Never quote the internet of disinformation. It is hardly ever right, and never checked.

Now go do some reading. And consider yourself told off.


PS: Salic law applies to a lot of things in law we have today, and also Codex Civilis.


PPS: I stand Corrected, The Netherlands Queen Regins as King AS well, I just checked.

Sincerely

fenir

[PBI]

Wiki isn't much of a reference I grant you, but it is (just) better than nothing. Perhaps you could provide a link to a more authoritative source? I have checked the Royal Website as you suggested but I cannot find any reference to the Salic Law in the section on succession nor any reference to the Queen's official title as "King of England" or anything to that effect except in the Channel Islands where she is referred to as "Duke of Normandy".

And the more I dig, the more times I see the same piece of information repeated: That the thrones of the UK and Hannover had to be separated upon the accession of Victoria since Hannover followed the Salic Law while the UK did not.

I would appreciate it if you would include a reference the next time you deride one of my posts so forcefully, especially since you seem to regard anything found on the internet as misinformation, instead of just stating "do some reading". Am I simply to go to Library and start at "A"?

[Colonel Flambard]

Fenir, I have dug like PBI with the same results. Please back yourself up with a FEW links to support your argument. Also Fenir, I cannot hope to take you seriously with such a blatant spelling error in your signature.

[pevergreen]

As always, attack the position not the person.

Just keep it clean boys

[Colonel Flambard]

You can be sure of good behaviour from me peverpink.

[fenir]

Public Information Office.........................Send an E-mail (ask). As for a "Link", A link to what? to the internet? pppfffftttttt get a book.

" To Whom it may concern,

Sir/Ma'am.

I am contacting you inregards to the Succession laws of our monarch.
My concern, is laws regarding the rights of a princess accsending the throne, And, whether she is crowned as King or Queen.
It is my understanding, that technically she would rule, as King. And be crowned as King.

Can you please provide me with some further information regarding this topic. Both how it has come about, and any further informatin regarding the reasons for it.
Or direct me to where i can find out more about this subject.
Thank you inadvanced,


Yours Sincerely


Such"n"such"



That should do it. Or use your phone, and find a Lawyer. (Consititutional Law). they should know.


Or you can read about 4 years of laws. And 6 years of Developed Law. or Customary Law.
You will be able to obtain law books from a university library regarding succesion if you are really interested.


Salic Law is not contained in english common law in its entirity, certinaly not today. It's contained as parts and tradition. Same with Codex Civilis. We don't have it contained as one document exactly copied from Emperor. We have used it as the baisis, and carried it over.
But English Common law is both based, and uses, salic and codex civilis.

If, you want to learn about both of the above, you will need a few years, and to learn latin. Then you will have to study enlish customary law, and it's development.

I suppose, most of salic law and codex civilis are really precedents of standards in most respects.


And as for my spelling mistake. I really don't give a damn. I could take offense at your lack of education. The way you part your hair, or simply because you are stuck up. But I am above that at the moment.
but that doesn't change what i have posted, i have posted the truth, as fact.
You can lazyman it, and ask public infor .gov.
Or really study it.



Sincerely

fenir

[Martok]

Easy, guys. This thread has already gone off-topic, and is now in danger of devolving into a flame-fest as well. Even folks in the Backroom are expected to be civil towards one another, and the Empire forum is no exception.

This thread was intended to discuss government mechanics in ETW and how they might function, not argue over the finer points of laws governing succession. (Besides which, I think it's safe to say that whatever model CA comes up with, it probably won't be as detailed as it is/was in real life. )