The Current Status of Monarchism.

[InsaneApache]

Just lots of cash instead.

[Fragony]

Happy queensday http://www.breakingtweets.com/2009/0...ueens-day.html

4 dead many wounded, head on a plate please, thx

[Furunculus]

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

let me be the third person to roll on the floor laughing my behind off.

but back to the figures, is there any facts or figures you would like to bring to the table regarding types of government and corruption, perhaps using western europe as a typical sample set?

[HoreTore]

let me be the third person to roll on the floor laughing my behind off.

but back to the figures, is there any facts or figures you would like to bring to the table regarding types of government and corruption, perhaps using western europe as a typical sample set?

Nope.

[lars573]

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.

France, Italy, and Germany (with all their hereditary counts, dukes, and princes) and Sweden (with none) would like to have a word with you....


Also democracy has nothing to do with the construction of government. Ancient Athens had a king/emperor don't forget.

Are you taking the piss?

I hope he is otherwise he's gone completely off the rez. If you know what I mean.

[HoreTore]

France, Italy, and Germany (with all their hereditary counts, dukes, and princes) and Sweden (with none) would like to have a word with you....


Also democracy has nothing to do with the construction of government. Ancient Athens had a king/emperor don't forget.


I hope he is otherwise he's gone completely off the rez. If you know what I mean.

Sweden has no nobility? Well that's pretty wrong, they have lots of them... Or were you referring to us, Norway? In which case you would be almost correct, outside the royal family, we've only got one noble...

France, Italy and Germany's nobility are a leftover from their days as monarchies.

And no, I wasn't being serious

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've heard some people say the monarchy will protect us if the Commons becomes too despotic, but I just can't see it happening tbh.

[Meneldil]

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

Because, I don't know ? They cared about the whole nation rather than only for a few people that supported their rule ?

Robespierre and Napoleon were indeed dictators (Robespierre being probably the forefather of Lenin, Stalin and other left-wing nutjobs), but they are not in any way similar to the inbreed dynasty that ruled France for so long.

Napoleon took power through sheer political skill, not because he was supposedly chosen by god (and the same applies for Napoleon III). He then tried to secure France's position in Europe, while - more or less - protecting the principles that emerged during the Revolution (as long as it did not oppose his rule).

Robespierre was at first elected by the people, and that gives him more legitimacy than any of our kings ever had (lol@ "A King is proclaimed by the people and rules through consent" btw). He killed people not to increase his prestige, or to be remembered, but because he believed in the ideals of the Revolution and did everything he could to protect them (even though he ended up betraying these same ideals).

And Sarmatian, France is - or was a few years ago - the most visited country in the world. You certainly don't need a monarchy to attract tourists.

Now, something bothers me. People are opposing Democracy and Monarchy, while both terms may work together. The UK is a Democratic Monarchy. People get to vote, and the monarchs are mostly here for the show.

If anything, monarchy should be opposed to republic, not to democracy.

[Incongruous]

I think Nappy rather thought he was chosen for the job as did old Robeysspear, it is constant among dictators, The Chosen One!

Both of them killed far more Frenchmen, indeed far more men, than any Capet, Valois or Bourbon ever managed to do in a lifetime, utterly horrid little men.

Napoleone didn't give a toss for France, he gave every toss for himself, the idiot bled France white and left it crushed for about 25 years thereafter.

He then tried to secure France's position in Europe, while - more or less - protecting the principles that emerged during the Revolution (as long as it did not oppose his rule).

So basically he didn't care for the Revolution but was perfectly willing to keep whatever parts did not conflict with his Dictatorial rule, and his wars brought about the largest death toll ever seen in Europe until WWI.

[Meneldil]

Wut ?

Both of them killed far more Frenchmen, indeed far more men, than any Capet, Valois or Bourbon ever managed to do in a lifetime, utterly horrid little men.

That is actually quite wrong. The Terror (caused not only by Robespierre but by a whole bunch of radicals) deathtoll is estimated at around 50k.
Louis XIV killed much more than that through his several wars, and I'm not even talking about the people who died indirectly through the various famines and riots his reign caused in the kingdom (I would have to find the estimates, but IIRC it was ranging from 100K to 600K).

To put things into perspective, the War in Vendée (started by the Royalists, while Robespierre was a minor politician), widely considered as the bloodiest part of the Revolution, caused between 100k and 450K deaths (both sides). Probably still less than what happened during Louis XIV's reign.

Napoleone didn't give a toss for France, he gave every toss for himself, the idiot bled France white and left it crushed for about 25 years thereafter.

Typical anglo-saxon perspective. Too bad it lacks any support. The vast majority of historians, whether they worship or despise Napoleon, would disagree with you.
Napoleon cared about France probably just as much as the French royal family did. The difference was that Napoleon never used up to 25% of the treasury for his own fame (Louis XIV effectively bankrupted the kingdom for the next century by using that amount of money to build Versailles).

And though I don't think Napoléon was "teh awesome" (he certainly was ambitious, selfish, and sent a whole lot of people to their death), he quite frankly does not qualify as an idiot. Or if he does, all his contemporaries should be called complete retards.

I think Nappy rather thought he was chosen for the job as did old Robeysspear, it is constant among dictators, The Chosen One!

Once again, you think wrong. Show me one proof, one source supporting this claim, whether it is for Robespierre, Napoléon, Lenin, or any other dictator and I might reconsider your opinion as somewhat valid.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

I do not see what is so odd about this?

As I understand it, the reasoning is that 'one can not bribe politicians by bestowing them with titles when there are no titles to begin with'. Not 'it is impossible to corrupt politicians if there are no titles'.

The first makes perfect sense. However, I do think that some non-monarchies hand out titles too, mostly non-heriditary ones.

France, Italy and Germany's nobility are a leftover from their days as monarchies.

For the sake of interest: France does not have a nobility.

Rather confusingly, France does have noble titles. The legal status of a noble title is - in some very complicated manner that I don't really understand - that of a protected part of the family name.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Those that say a Republic is better immune to idiots in power than a Monarchy should look at GWB and learn. An idiot can be bred as much as be elected for power.

At least the Monarch does not have to be concerned with public opinion, and therefore the means that manipulate public opinion. The notion that all governments should be elected and empowered by the people is not written in stone, neither it is necessarily the best; if the people are stupid, and if the people are easily manipulated by Big Money and Big Media into being swayed for demagogues or a certain candidate, then it's best to take away their right.

Which is probably one of the biggest problems out there. A perfect Democracy exists only in the realms of dream; in the United States the power of the top guys effectively enforces a two-party oligarchy ran by the same old interests.

[Incongruous]

Wut ?



That is actually quite wrong. The Terror (caused not only by Robespierre but by a whole bunch of radicals) deathtoll is estimated at around 50k.
Louis XIV killed much more than that through his several wars, and I'm not even talking about the people who died indirectly through the various famines and riots his reign caused in the kingdom (I would have to find the estimates, but IIRC it was ranging from 100K to 600K).

To put things into perspective, the War in Vendée (started by the Royalists, while Robespierre was a minor politician), widely considered as the bloodiest part of the Revolution, caused between 100k and 450K deaths (both sides). Probably still less than what happened during Louis XIV's reign.



Typical anglo-saxon perspective. Too bad it lacks any support. The vast majority of historians, whether they worship or despise Napoleon, would disagree with you.
Napoleon cared about France probably just as much as the French royal family did. The difference was that Napoleon never used up to 25% of the treasury for his own fame (Louis XIV effectively bankrupted the kingdom for the next century by using that amount of money to build Versailles).

The Vendee? How does that equal the Royal house? It does not.

The wars of Napoleon were the biggest and greatest Europe had ever seen by miles, nothing compared to their scope and destructive impact, whereas the Sun King conquered areas within the vicinty of France, Nappy went everywhere and killed everyone, for what? He set up Kings and Dukes and happily put down popular uprisings in the true spirit of the Revolution, take a look at the Vendee or Spain...

Hmm, how much of France's money did Nappy spend on his absurd quest for personal glorification via European dominance? How many Frenchmen did he kill? How many Europeans did he kill?

Anyway, you keep him as a hero, we have our bloody heros too...
But I feel he is a good example to bring up, as is the French Revolution, when discussing the true good of Republican (or any) revolution. I feel that far from being the epitome of Enlightenment (which so many Europeans regard it as) it is in fact nothing of the sort. There is nothing Enlightened about that episode in my OPINION...

[KarlXII]

whereas the Sun King conquered areas within the vicinty of France

Yeah, what a great guy .

Civil Code

Concordat of 1801

Organic Articles

From what I read, Napoleon emancipated Jews, especially since many lived in ghettos.

Yes, Napoleon ("Nappy" as he is strangely referred to) is probably better studied as a commander than a govenor, though he did set back much progress in Europe, it is undoubtable that he made many contributions to numerous fields. Though he did recieve a good licking at the hands of Welly and Bluchy, how about Joyes? Would we call him Joyoyoyoys? .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, what a great guy .

Civil Code

Concordat of 1801

Organic Articles

From what I read, Napoleon emancipated Jews, especially since many lived in ghettos.

Yes, Napoleon ("Nappy" as he is strangely referred to) is probably better studied as a commander than a govenor, though he did set back much progress in Europe, it is undoubtable that he made many contributions to numerous fields. Though he did recieve a good licking at the hands of Welly and Bluchy, how about Joyes? Would we call him Joyoyoyoys? .

Generally he should be reffered to as "Boney" as he was at the time. Hence, "Boney and Nosey have a bust up."

Anyway, when Napoleon invaded somewhere he let his men rape, kill and despoil. Nosey made his men pay, in France they paid in silver franks, if they raped or stole they were executed.

[Incongruous]

Never said he was a great guy did I? Stop attacking shadows...

Never said he never did any good, otherwise I would not realise why the French love him, however the other thinsg he and the Revolutionaries did mean that I cannot.

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

[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?

[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...

[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.

[Dodge_272]

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.

And the fact that we'd have to dissolve the union, or change the name of our country at the very least.

[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.