Monarchists

[HoreTore]

That's an interesting take.

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.

I think they're interesting.

Hmmmmm.....

Wasn't white the colour of the Habsburgs? What's up with the black and yellow?

[Sarmatian]

I believe red and white was the colour of Archduchy of Austria and black and yellow denoted all lands ruled by Habsburgs later, before it was changed againwhen the country was renamed Austria-Hungary.

Considering the party, well, too imperialistic for me. They're trying to do what EU is already doing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.[/URL]

Don't make me dig up grandpa's uniform from the attic.

The European continent isn't large enough for both international dynasties and revolutionary republicanism. The Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary - we've dissolved them all before, and I'll do it again.

[KarlXII]

Don't make me dig up grandpa's uniform from the attic.

The European continent isn't large enough for both international dynasties and revolutionary republicanism. The Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary - we've dissolved them all before, and I'll do it again.

Now don't let me remind you Revolutionary Republicanism often falls to good looking and strong worded leaders, some of whom have turned those Republics into Dictatorships or Empires.

[HoreTore]

Now don't let me remind you Revolutionary Republicanism often falls to good looking and strong worded leaders, some of whom have turned those Republics into Dictatorships or Empires.

A dictator is like a monarch, but without the inbreeding. Which makes it far superior to a monarchy.

[rory_20_uk]

A dictator is like a monarch, but without the inbreeding. Which makes it far superior to a monarchy.

Facile statement.

Dictators serve themselves, hence how they got there. Less chance they'll have any interest in the country they've grasped. Monarchs don't always either, but there's a greater chance.

Dictators are often drawn from aristocratic stock or if you're really unlucky the armed forces or worse still some backward tribal dump.

[Vladimir]

Is there room in there for an Enlightened Despot?

[Viking]

Facile statement.

Dictators serve themselves, hence how they got there. Less chance they'll have any interest in the country they've grasped. Monarchs don't always either, but there's a greater chance.

Dictators are often drawn from aristocratic stock or if you're really unlucky the armed forces or worse still some backward tribal dump.

There is nothing in the definition of dictator or monarch that says that one of should serve himself more than the other, as far as I can see. For example, Hitler's and Mussolini's ideologies weren't personal.

[Vladimir]

There is nothing in the definition of dictator or monarch that says that one of should serve himself more than the other, as far as I can see. For example, Hitler's and Mussolini's ideologies weren't personal.

They used their ideologies for personal gain. That is enough for me.

[Viking]

They used their ideologies for personal gain. That is enough for me.

That's not something that a monarch couldn't or wouldn't have done. It's completely possible for a monarch to be a dictator; and even if he isn't, it shouldn't be a given whom he serves the most; his country or himself. And if you happen sit at the top, rock-solid as an average monarch does it; serving your country and yourself are hardly two mutually exclusive things, are they?

[KarlXII]

That's not something that a monarch couldn't or wouldn't have done. It's completely possible for a monarch to be a dictator; and even if he isn't, it shouldn't be a given whom he serves the most; his country or himself. And if you happen sit at the top, rock-solid as an average monarch does it; serving your country and yourself are hardly two mutually exclusive things, are they?

It's possible, but nowadays it's rare. Unless you're willing to tell me the UK is a despotistic monarchy.

[HoreTore]

They used their ideologies for personal gain. That is enough for me.

Hitler used his ideology for personal gain?

What?

Lenin and Franco would also fit in the category of "dictators for the people". And by people, I mean their particular interest group, of curse, the proletariat and the aristocracy respectively.

[Viking]

It's possible, but nowadays it's rare. Unless you're willing to tell me the UK is a despotistic monarchy.

Most monarchies of today are pointless monarchies where the royals are spectators rather than actors in the play of politics. With no power comes no responsibility; there's simply nothing to abuse, such that my previous post and preceding comparisons become irrelevant.

[Vladimir]

Hitler used his ideology for personal gain?

What?

Oh that's right. He never took advantage of his office.

[HoreTore]

Oh that's right. He never took advantage of his office.

In what way did he take advantage in his office in a way that a president or monarch never would?

[Beskar]

The argument for Monarchies, is that some one else gave themselves the same type of power and wasn't heredity born into that position?

[Mouzafphaerre]

Is there room in there for an Enlightened Despot?

.
If dynastic, yes.
.

[Vladimir]

.
If dynastic, yes.
.

Wha HOO! Count me in!

[Kralizec]

Is there room in there for an Enlightened Despot?

.
If dynastic, yes.
.

In that light, do you approve of Gamal Mubarak's grooming for the "throne" in Egypt?

[Vladimir]

In that light, do you approve of Gamal Mubarak's grooming for the "throne" in Egypt?

It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other.

[Mouzafphaerre]

In that light, do you approve of Gamal Mubarak's grooming for the "throne" in Egypt?

.
Nope. Nor Beşşar Esed nor Ilham Aliyef. We're talking about honest monarchies here, not fake republics.
.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

An Absolute or Feudal Monarchy would not be adequate to a modern environment that values moveable property and money over landed estates, practical concerns above metaphysical abstractions, has no religious justification or bond with itself and its ruler, and most importantly is now in a gradual stage of being rendered into an immense uniform mass without distinct national or even dynastic identities which would justify a Monarchy at first, as opposed to a society where the prominence of landed estates suffocates the wealthy urban burgeoisie or at least keeps it in check, like the late French Absolutist Regime. It should also be mindful that no Monarchy can cope with a larger number of urban masses than rural ones, and thus the situations looks even more dim to them.

But so far, in an ideal situation, I think I would be in favour of Enlightened Despotism. Bar that a Constitutional Monarchy.

Alas, the closest we could get today to an authoritarian state would be a totalitarian regime. The difference between it and an actual Monarchy is the whole scenario of tradition and the presence of an elite aristocracy which is almost exclusively bred for the job of ruling, rather than merely relying on the sheer magnanimity of the head autocrat and accidents of destiny which might lead to a good or bad ruler. A Monarchy can have good regents and the aristocracy to act on behalf of the King when he's not fit to rule, examples being Fleury et all, thus shattering the myth that it all decisively depends on the competence of just one ruler, of which I think it deservedly goes only to Totalitarian states without similar checks and balances, or worse, to Republics where the ruling "class" is so corrupt and crooked that only heroes can save it from utter self-destruction and neglect, as tragic as it might sound.

[Meneldil]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

Either you're supporting a constitutional monarchy such as UK, which is pointless since the royals are mere figure there, or you're supporting a system that gives ultimate power to a guy, just because he was born in a given family.
Both ideas are IMO retard.

[Kralizec]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

That's an ironic statement, considering that Napoleon created his own monarchy...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

(Enlightened) Absolut(e/ism)

I agree.. Enlightened Absolute monarchy is the best one..

[Prince Cobra]

I can also be clasified as a monarchist (Parliamentarian), though I am quite aware that there is no chance for Bulgaria to become a monarchy again (esp. after the failure of the King in exile (and Prime-minister between 2001-2005) to play active role in the politics of Bulgaria entering into strange political combination in the previous government of Bulgaria (2005-2009)). Otherwise, I still believe that the monarch can have a stabilising role in the state. For example, dictatorships in the monarchies are less likely.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
List [being constantly] updated [as new monarchists declare themselves].
.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

Either you're supporting a constitutional monarchy such as UK, which is pointless since the royals are mere figure there, or you're supporting a system that gives ultimate power to a guy, just because he was born in a given family.
Both ideas are IMO retard.

Wasn't your second Emperor the son of your first Emperor? Sounds like a Dynastic monarchy to me.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Nephew.
.

[lars573]

Nope son, but he only regined for a day or three.. There is a reason the nephew was Napoleon III not Napoleon II.