The Current Status of Monarchism.

[KarlXII]

Oh dear, not liking "Nappy" are we, don't worry yourself about it, you could call him Boney and Wellington, Nosey, alright?

No, I'd rather refer to them as their, you know, proper names. Sorry if it's a radical idea, like Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get used to it, Defaulty.

[Incongruous]

Oh dear, name calling and deriding again is it?

Well, lets to it then.



You have not yet put up a decent argument against those of us whom agree with the UK's cosntitutional monarchy, all you have done is attack a position no one upholds, so it seems that you have thus far done bollox all to advance the position of Republicans in this thread.

Instead it now appears that you are over touchy on the silly and meaningless names people call very old and very dead men


Yay for a pointless argument.

Now, come at me with a very sharp and deady Republican argument so we can get back on track.

[KarlXII]

Oh dear, name calling and deriding again is it?

When did I call you a name? I simply used the variation of one you use.

Leave the laugh smiley's to Tribes, I think he has it handled.

You have not yet put up a decent argument against those of us whom agree with the UK's cosntitutional monarchy

Never even made an argument about Britain's consitutional monarchy.

so it seems that you have thus far done bollox all to advance the position of Republicans in this thread.

Never even made an argument about Republicanism.

Instead it now appears that you are over touchy on the silly and meaningless names people call very old and very dead men

And it seems you are over touchy about a member disagreeing and lampooning your use of demeaning names for people.

Now, come at me with a very sharp and deady Republican argument so we can get back on track.

I, for one, find Consitutional Monarchy the best choice of government. A monarch acts in the interest of his or her nation, if he/she does not he/she must be removed. However, with the addition of a democratic legislature, we find that the people's voice is heard in matters, thus creating a middle ground of monarchy and republicanism. I find, especially in the USA, the current two-party Republic simply voting for the less of two evils. President's, even if they promise to stop devisive exchange, stick to the party and not the people when deciding matters of the State.

[Brenus]

"A monarch acts in the interest of his or her nation, if he/she does not he/she must be removed". Er, that is the point, isn't it? Because it is exactly what happened to the Constitutional Monarchy in France. The French tried it(and not only once), it always failed because Kings don't think about the Country's interests but his, then revolution and Republic is now in DNA.

Don't argue with English about French. We are the last political correct enemy they've got and most of the times their knowledge about history is coming from Sharp or other similar books.
They tried the Polish few months ago but it is less fun...
Yesterday I heard on a Radio Station as example of oxymoron "French Military Victory"... Do you see the level?

[Scurvy]

"[B]
Don't argue with English about French. We are the last political correct enemy they've got and most of the times their knowledge about history is coming from Sharp or other similar books.
They tried the Polish few months ago but it is less fun...
Yesterday I heard on a Radio Station as example of oxymoron "French Military Victory"... Do you see the level?

Don't generalize or anything...

I'm all in favour of getting rid of the British monarchy on principle, but in practical terms, it is useful to have a ceremonial monarch who can perform symbolic duties and the christmas speech.

[Incongruous]

I, for one, find Consitutional Monarchy the best choice of government. A monarch acts in the interest of his or her nation, if he/she does not he/she must be removed. However, with the addition of a democratic legislature, we find that the people's voice is heard in matters, thus creating a middle ground of monarchy and republicanism. I find, especially in the USA, the current two-party Republic simply voting for the less of two evils. President's, even if they promise to stop devisive exchange, stick to the party and not the people when deciding matters of the State.

So, your main gripe with the U.S Republic, and others I assume, is the divisive politics it creates? Are you also advancing the idea of more power for a Monarch in state affairs? To what standard would you hold the Monarchs actions as being within the interest of the nation?

I would add that divisive and utterly corrupt politics are also part of Constitutional Monarchy, along the Westminster line at least. These are things which I also doubt would be solved by Republicanism, but I don't agree (I don't know if you do either) with increased Monarchical power, simply more power for the Lords, the upper house and stricter control over that den of rats in the Commons.

[KarlXII]

[QUOTE=Default the Magyar;2237639]So, your main gripe with the U.S Republic, and others I assume, is the divisive politics it creates? [quote]

Yes.

Are you also advancing the idea of more power for a Monarch in state affairs?

If it becomes necessary, sure. Naturally, these powers will be limited strictly and defined by the legislature.

To what standard would you hold the Monarchs actions as being within the interest of the nation?

Well, pretty self explanatory. If they Monarch is using tax money to host large parties and build private castles, then they are obviously acting in their own interests.

I would add that divisive and utterly corrupt politics are also part of Constitutional Monarchy, along the Westminster line at least.

All governments are more or less corrupt.

I also doubt would be solved by Republicanism, but I don't agree (I don't know if you do either) with increased Monarchical power, simply more power for the Lords, the upper house and stricter control over that den of rats in the Commons.

I'm not quite familiar with how the British houses work. A monarch can create a cultural image and represent his or her nation, a monarch is someone I can rally behind without party affiliations. With a president, it's more of a "I'll be here for a couple of years trying to enact bills MY party wants me to, then someone else can do it. And we'll keep doing it until the other party get's in, and then they'll do it too."

[HoreTore]

[QUOTE=KarlXII;2237641]

Well, pretty self explanatory. If they Monarch is using tax money to host large parties and build private castles, then they are obviously acting in their own interests.

That's exactly what every single european monarch is doing.

On my tax money, might I add...

[lars573]

I'm not quite familiar with how the British houses work. A monarch can create a cultural image and represent his or her nation, a monarch is someone I can rally behind without party affiliations. With a president, it's more of a "I'll be here for a couple of years trying to enact bills MY party wants me to, then someone else can do it. And we'll keep doing it until the other party get's in, and then they'll do it too."

It's like that in a republic with a presidential (or semi-presidential) system. In parlimentary republics (Germany, Italy, lots of eastern europe, Turkey, India) it's like Britain in that the president is a constitutional figure head.