The Current Status of Monarchism.

[Incongruous]

I said it before, but I'll happily say it again:

If the people loves their king so much, the solution is obvious to us living in a democracy: ELECT HIM!

The lack of hereditary rule is one of the top reasons why democracy is better than other systems. In a democracy, people come to power because of their abilities. If the King/Queen is so loved, then it shouldn't be a problem getting them elected. So, that a people wants to keep their monarchy isn't a reason to keep the monarchy at all, in fact its a good reason to abolish it.

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

[lenin96]

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

But you don't vote for your monarch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

lolwut ?

While Louis XVI was actually a decent king, and probably did not deserve to be shortened the way he was, his familly was on a general basis and by all accounts, a bunch of inbred morons responsible for most of the wars that plagued Europe for centuries.
If anything, the Restauration (1815-1830) shown us that the royal family was nothing but a lot of idiots.

I mean, you can admire the Sun King's military and political achievements. That doesn't change the fact he caused thousands of deaths. He probably killed as many people as Napoleon, yet he did not bring with him the ideas of equality, freedom and republic.
And I'm not even talking about Louis XVIII, Charles X, and the rest of the gang.

So yeah, I'm glad we got rid of them all. I'd take Napoleon or Robespierre over any of them at any time.

Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?

[Brenus]

"Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?"

Napoleon was not a monarchist. By definition.

How they wrere better: They never pretended it was a right by God's will...

Caputs? or Kaput?

[Furunculus]

But you don't vote for your monarch.

Is that a problem if no better form of governance exists?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?"

Napoleon was not a monarchist. By definition.

How they wrere better: They never pretended it was a right by God's will...

Caputs? or Kaput?

How was Napoleon not a Monarch?

He was the sole (mono) ruler (arche) of France. He saw himself as a Roman Emperor and he made his brother of king of Spain!

He got as many Frenchmen killed as any of your kings, and he wanted his son to suceed him.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think this discussion is pointless. You can have absolute monarches, lame duck monarchs, and everything inbetween. The same goes for whatever other person/group of people might be in charge, whether they are populist dictators, oligarchs, or whoever.

The real question is whether or not the hereditary asepct of monarchy is of any value.

[HoreTore]

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

[Furunculus]

speaking as a brit to a norwegian; no you shouldn't.

you can comment, but to have a say is to imply to have some effect of change.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

That's the essence of the state - forcing your will on others. Autocrats and democrats alike follow that model.

[Incongruous]

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

WTF?
What do you not understand about the popularity of our monarchy and the structure of constitutional monarchy?

No crap we don;t get a vote in terms of who is monarch! It is a monarchy! Stop acting as if you cannot comprehend any other form of government which does not require people to vote in a bunch of idiots into parliament.

But you don't vote for your monarch.

Correct, that is why it is a monarchy...

[InsaneApache]

So Britian would be as instable like Rwanda if we tried to remove the head of state ?!

We have a functioning first world democracy, removing the monarchy would cause neither revolution nor instability, infact i suspect the country would function pretty much along the same lines... the Queen is a figure head... no more than that...

I'm not sure about chaos and civil war but do remember this, the members of the armed services take an oath to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, not the government of the day. They also take this oath very seriously.

We are where we are after a thousand years and we have become one of the most stable countries in the world. Like I said in my earlier post, I'd rather have Brenda as head of state than an oily politician* any day of the week.

*Apologies to those members here who have oily politicians as thier head of state.

[HoreTore]

speaking as a brit to a norwegian; no you shouldn't.

you can comment, but to have a say is to imply to have some effect of change.

Uhm.... I'm pretty sure everyone else understood that I didn't mean myself when I said "the rest of us", it should be blindingly obvious that I was referring to the general population.

That's the essence of the state - forcing your will on others. Autocrats and democrats alike follow that model.

Not quite. In a democracy, you get to choose who's enforcing their will. Having someone in charge without electing them is the direct opposite of what a democracy is.

WTF?
What do you not understand about the popularity of our monarchy and the structure of constitutional monarchy?

If he's so popular, then a vote shouldn't change a thing. So, I honestly can't understand why a vote will hurt. If he's popular, nothing changes. If he's not, well, what happens then is the will of the people, and that's what democracy is all about, right?

@InsaneApache: we do the same thing in our military. I'll happily swap sides as I please, however, no way am I going to fight and die for an inbred dolt I don't agree with...

[lenin96]

Is that a problem if no better form of governance exists?

There are many better forms of governments. A goverment that has the potential to let an idiot become a leader has a problem, whether there is no better goverment or not. Such a major problem has to be fixed. Why not have a republic (Not necessarily reffering to Democracy).

Correct, that is why it is a monarchy...

But why have a monarchy then?

[Furunculus]

There are many better forms of governments. A goverment that has the potential to let an idiot become a leader has a problem, whether there is no better goverment or not. Such a major problem has to be fixed. Why not have a republic (Not necessarily reffering to Democracy).



But why have a monarchy then?

show me a more successful form of governance as exhibited by any other other country which compares favourably to Britain, when outcomes for the population are taken into consideration. and quantify those more favourable outcomes.

i await with no little anticipation.............................

[HoreTore]

show me a more successful form of governance as exhibited by any other other country which compares favourably to Britain, when outcomes for the population are taken into consideration. and quantify those more favourable outcomes.

i await with no little anticipation.............................

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

[lenin96]

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

True, but there are many different forms of Republics... Like a Socialist one.

[HoreTore]

True, but there are many different forms of Republics... Like a Socialist one.

I said democracy, not republic. And the great thing about it, is that there is no need to specify whether a democracy is socialist, religious, capitalist, liberal, conservative or whatever. It can be any of them, and change between them peacefully.

[lenin96]

I said democracy, not republic. And the great thing about it, is that there is no need to specify whether a democracy is socialist, religious, capitalist, liberal, conservative or whatever. It can be any of them, and change between them peacefully.

I would discuss further on that but then we would get off topic. It could be an interesting discussion, maybe a separate thread?

[Furunculus]

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

so how are they better?

[HoreTore]

so how are they better?

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

[Incongruous]

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

[HoreTore]

Oh dear.... Do we have another Tribesman?

Except the old Tribesman usually have some solid argument beneath the surface...

[Incongruous]

Oh dear.... Do we have another Tribesman?

Except the old Tribesman usually have some solid argument beneath the surface...

Nope I have no good argument, I just point at yours' and almost die of laughter, that was such an awsome post HoreTore

Phew, ok...

It was an erroneous distinction HoreTore, it was great, you were levelling the accusation of corruption against a specific form of government as if it was some great evil which demonstrated clearly the ill sof constitutional monarchy. I laughed because corruption is an institution of all governments, no matter their contruct, tbh the idea that a gut may buy his way into the Lords is alot less frightening than people being elected Senator because of fat manila enevlope changing hands.

[HoreTore]

It was an erroneous distinction HoreTore, it was great, you were levelling the accusation of corruption against a specific form of government as if it was some great evil which demonstrated clearly the ill sof constitutional monarchy.

Uhm, no. A fail on every front.

Try again.

As your doctor, however, I'm authorized to give you a bottle of these "makes me understand irony, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek-comments and humour in general"-pills

[InsaneApache]

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

Are you taking the piss?

[Incongruous]

Uhm, no. A fail on every front.

Try again.

As your doctor, however, I'm authorized to give you a bottle of these "makes me understand irony, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek-comments and humour in general"-pills

Oh I see it was one of those, oh bugger that was wrong but I'll just paint it a different shade of red and no one will notice, type things was it?

Yes, you were levelling the accusation of corruption at a specific form of government, bribing in exchange for titles, is corruption. They do very similar things in Italy I'm told they also tried to do it in the U.S not too long ago.

[HoreTore]

Yes, you were levelling the accusation of corruption at a specific form of government, bribing in exchange for titles, is corruption. They do very similar things in Italy I'm told they also tried to do it in the U.S not too long ago.

Can't bribe someone for a noble title without the government being a monarchy, hence that will not happen in countries without a monarchy.

I wasn't talking about corruption in general, I was talking about a very specific form of it you will never see outside monarchies.

Irrelevant? Oh my yes. But that was kind of the point, aye?

[InsaneApache]

You are aware that it is politicians not the monarch who doles out awards and suchlike. Seems as though you're arguing against elected politicians here HoreTore.

[HoreTore]

Seems as though you're arguing against elected politicians here HoreTore.

That's the joy of living in a democracy, you know

But no, without the monarchy, they wouldn't have any hereditary titles to give out.