Enough Already with the Experiments - Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

[Louis VI the Fat]

A thought has grown in my mind over the years. What if I have been wrong, and a monarchy is the best form of government after all?


Let's face facts:
- Stable states have monarchies. Republican states are instable, prone to irresponsible adventures.
- Modern monarchies are different from the old ones. Even commoners can now climb to the status of monarch.
- The papacy is a monarchy too. This shows that monarchy and meritocracy can go hand-in-hand, to increase that most central funtion of modern monarchies: to be a beacon of morality in our confused postmodern world.
- A quick glance at the difference in the past two centuries between Britain and the failed cesspool that is France should bury the argument for republicanism.


On behalf of all commoners I'd like to offer my sincere apologies to all monarchs, especially the decapitated ones. An apology I would like to extent to their brave commoner supporters, who in the face of opposition of excitable masses have proven with their money and the blood of their children their staunch loyalty to those God has placed above them.


Le républicanisme est mort, vive le roi! Vive la Monarchie!

[Louis VI the Fat]

The magic of the monarchy: The royal moment has come

Prince William has shown he can be a new kind of king. It is time to put away the cynicism and pledge our full-throated support



A few short weeks from now, with the world looking on, William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor will exchange rings with Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, and much of Britain will rejoice. Yet, at such moments, certain voices – this newspaper's included – have long expressed dissent. All this mawkish celebration, they maintain, merely bolsters an anti-democratic institution based on privilege and patronage, a costly anachronism that ought to be abolished. That view is understandable. But it is time for them – for us – to reconsider. A decade ago, the Guardian prominently announced its commitment to republicanism. But Prince William has shown that he can be a new kind of king. That is why, in a significant change of course, we today pledge our full-throated support for the British monarchy.

Let's face it: the current crop of world leaders is far from inspiring. Across the Arab world, dictators battle their own people; at home, attitudes towards Cameron and Clegg alternate between apathy and outrage. In America, the hope that greeted Barack Obama has long since faded. As The King's Speech so vividly reminded us, there are times when only the calming leadership of a hereditary monarch will do; and as the MPs' expenses scandal illustrates, it can be dangerous to trust power-hungry elected officials, who lack the security provided by land ownership and immense wealth. Amid all this, William in particular stands out as something unique: a bastion of tradition with a deeply modern sensibility – not to mention a helicopter pilot's licence. When the time comes, we urge Prince Charles to redouble his focus on his important work in the field of alternative medicine, and to pass the mantle of head of state to his son.
For too long, a hair-shirt tendency on the left has insisted that a commitment to progressive values is incompatible with an appreciation for the magic and wonder of royalty. But in this era of austerity, couldn't we all do with being a bit more "happy and glorious"? Few things, after all, are as likely to lift the spirits of Britain's embattled public sector workers or benefit claimants than the sight of Kate Middleton's sure-to-be-spectacular wedding dress.

The couple themselves, meanwhile, reflect values close to this paper's own. William encapsulates our spirit of internationalism, thanks to his Greek and German heritage on his father's side, and his gap year in Chile. Kate embodies our commitment to gender equality in the way in which she has faced work-life challenges common to many women today, juggling such roles as accessories buyer for Jigsaw and being one of Tatler magazine's top 10 fashion icons. Other royals, too, are surely deserving of recognition: belatedly, for example, we have come to appreciate the crucial work done by Prince Andrew, using his personal connections to plant the seeds of democracy in repressive regimes worldwide.

Beginning today, the Guardian announces a raft of changes designed to ensure that our royal coverage is unrivalled by any other media organisation. We begin an unprecedented month-long, 24-hour royal wedding live blog, offering minute-by-minute coverage of the preparations. We will be recalling correspondents from some less newsworthy parts of the globe, such as north Africa and south-east Asia, so they can focus on palace matters instead. And we will shortly be making available to readers a range of attractive commemorative crockery.
The marriage of a prince to a commoner – a true bridging of class divides, if ever there was one – represents the perfect moment for progressives to commit again to the promise of hereditary monarchy. Great philosophers, from Burke to Andrew Morton, have argued powerfully for the institution's value. In any case, it would be churlish to fight the tide of excitement and optimism currently flooding the nation. It is time to put away the cynicism, and get out the union jacks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-royal-moment

At last Britain's partisan press has discovered that it is in fact the Monarchy which is the true guardian of the working classes of Britain. The symbol of that feature which sets Britain most apart from the continent: social justice.

[Rahwana]

now, will you search the real biological heir of Napoleon?

[Ronin]

Sic semper tyrannis

[Strike For The South]

[Tellos Athenaios]

Poisson d'Avril.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sic semper tyrannis

You would prefer a Tyranny to a Mo0narchy? Why?

[al Roumi]

Poisson d'Avril.

Either that or Louis has gone all gooey over "our" Kate and Will.

[Furunculus]

Enough Already with the Experiments - Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

I am unsurprisingly unwilling to make any generalisations that support or refute your assertion.

All I will note is that in the case of Britain the constitutional monarchy has served the country very, very well, and that no-one has ever presented any substantial and unequivocal evidence that a change to a republic would provide a net-benefit to the sum of British governance.

Therefore, in the case of Britain, I do not support any move away from the system we already employ.

[Skullheadhq]

"Een drievoudig snoer wordt niet licht verbroken en Gods woord is de band die Oranje en Nederland onverbrekelijk verbindt."
~Isaac da Costa, 1831

Long live the Monarchy! Down with Republicanism and the curses of the Enlightment!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

inb4 Frag's anti-orangist rant based on conspiracy theories ;)

[Viking]

This is one of few topics in domestic politics that has the ability to interest me...the Republic of Norway is inevitable, it will come in due time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is one of few topics in domestic politics that has the ability to interest me...the Republic of Norway is inevitable, it will come in due time.

Why?

[Sarmatian]

Nah, Louis has just found his grand-grand-grand-grandfather guillotine in the garage and thought how cool it would be to use it again and there's a label on it "works best on monarchs" so... Gives the world a shining example of French know-how as well, double trouble...

[Viking]

Why?

My wishes tend to become reality, don't they?

I think it is easier then ever to topple the monarchy at present; and that it should become even easier as time passes - for various reasons (some local). More public awareness on the topic, and the balance might be tipped.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Either that or Louis has gone all gooey over "our" Kate and Will.

Duh! Who here is not under the spell of the greatest pageantry this side of tribal New Guinea?







Move over, you amateur Zulu. European civilisation is superior because Kate and Will have got more shiny beads, feathery headgear and fur shoulder enhancement:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Therefore, in the case of Britain, I do not support any move away from the system we already employ.

I fully support a British monarchy! If only because I am probably a successor to the British throne.


I shall have to work on downplaying that inconvenient Catholic baptism a bit, but other than that, I'm pretty sure I'm eligable to the throne through various lines of descendancy. In fact, from the looks of it, the whole of Europe is, save for a handful of convicts in the Australian outback and some scattered pockets of Irish catholics.

[Jaguara]

Well, my girlfriend has a royal French bloodline all the way back through one of the Louis's to Charlemagne...so she is probably somewhere like 1,354,846 in line for the French throne...if ever reinstated.

Better odds than the lottery folks!

[gaelic cowboy]

April fools no doubt

[Fragony]

Hail the monarchy, a neverending source of collaboration, incest, warcrimes, corruption and fraud. Some think the nazi's are gone

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My wishes tend to become reality, don't they?

I think it is easier then ever to topple the monarchy at present; and that it should become even easier as time passes - for various reasons (some local). More public awareness on the topic, and the balance might be tipped.

You might want to find a preferable alternative first, and a way to keep your newly-private-but-incredibly-wealthy-and-own-large-swathes-of-the-country-citizens out of politics permenantly.

Or you could not bother.

[HoreTore]

April fools no doubt

Seconded.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You might want to find a preferable alternative first, and a way to keep your newly-private-but-incredibly-wealthy-and-own-large-swathes-of-the-country-citizens out of politics permenantly.

Or you could not bother.

That's right. Uppity serfs like Viking need to understand that he will live forever under the iron fist of one incredibly wealthy family which owns large swathes of his country. Albeit, of course, that this iron fist consists of slaves keeping other slaves down in exchange for a pat on the head from massa.

As well it should be.

[Skullheadhq]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

inb4 Frag's anti-orangist rant based on conspiracy theories ;)

Hail the monarchy, a neverending source of collaboration, incest, warcrimes, corruption and fraud. Some think the nazi's are gone

Did I win?

[Viking]

You might want to find a preferable alternative first, and a way to keep your newly-private-but-incredibly-wealthy-and-own-large-swathes-of-the-country-citizens out of politics permenantly.

Or you could not bother.

Having these people born into to their positions is terribly wrong. It is also a potential hazard for the unknown future. One must bother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having these people born into to their positions is terribly wrong. It is also a potential hazard for the unknown future. One must bother.

"Terribly wrong"?

Why? I'll grant you it's unfair for them to have to shoulder the burden of a whole nation by dint og birth, but they are fairly well compensated, I would say.

Constitutional monarchs are not wholly toothless but they can only really cause deadlock, not tyranny - so they represent no more danger to a nation than an elected president. Don't forget, most current tyrannies (Zimbabwe for example) are ruled by men initially elected into office. It seems to me that your main objection is an instinctive discomfort with someone holding a heriditory position - that's not necessarily wrong but I challenge you to demonstrate that Norway would be better governed as a Republic than a Monarchy. Consider, a lot of the most politically stable places in Europe, with the happiest populations, are monarchies.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Because you don't get to choose it. People who go into lawyering are fairly well compensated for their troubles, too, but they choose to do it; and their employers choose to hire them. I've never seen a application to be my head of state from any of them royals for my review, have you? I do get similar ones on a fairly consistent basis from politicians and I pass my judgment on them by way of the ballot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because you don't get to choose it. People who go into lawyering are fairly well compensated for their troubles, too, but they choose to do it; and their employers choose to hire them. I've never seen a application to be my head of state from any of them royals for my review, have you? I do get similar ones on a fairly consistent basis from politicians and I pass my judgment on them by way of the ballot.

That's still more of a complaint than a reason. If the system works and you are well governed why make material changes?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Consider, a lot of the most politically stable places in Europe, with the happiest populations, are monarchies.

To be fair, this is probably only because the modern states that still have monarchies happen to be the ones that never went down the road of absolutism in the past (or if they did, they were checked early on). So the monarchy was weak enough in these places that it never merited a bloody overthrow by its own subjects.

Rather than these countries being stable because they are monarchies, they remain monarchies because they are stable.

Or you could maybe say that monarchy and stability at least complement each other. But I don't think so. My inner Marxist tells me that socioeconomic bla bla etc factors determine political systems, and not the reverse. Britain's political stablility with its parliamentary sovereignty and nominal monarchy is probably something to do with the fact that that very system was put in place after a serious of civil wars in which social (if not class) conflict was central. The middling sort, having cemented economic status and stablity, soon saw it reflected in the political system.

I don't see anything inherent in the idea of monarchy that makes it ideal for creating stability.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's still more of a complaint than a reason. If the system works and you are well governed why make material changes?

This is assuming you consider it acceptable to be governed by lot, rather than by your will. It's awfully close to the reasoning behind the Patriot Act: if you don't have anything to hide, surely you wouldn't object to the complete lack of accountability and checks-and-balances with this power grab? Or: if you don't have any interest in child porn, why would you complain about the Great Australian Firewall despite it being both incompetent, subjective and ludicrous beyond belief?

Point is that these laws might not affect you even though they should be gotten rid of. Just like monarchies.

[PershsNhpios]

Viking is correct, it is a problem that the successor is born into his position, however he is concerned only because he has not seen the solution.

It is for this reason that we must ensure the right man for the job is born by a series of culls and similarly agricultural eliminations which bring the gene pool to a more manageable puddle.

I believe Louis is doing a fine job of welcoming the New Dark Age by encouraging the preference of a popular, mature man and his bint being lumbered with the issues of state rather than an entire demographic of paradoxically unpopular, disordered 'persons'.

In order to more thoroughly follow the path of our ancestors, I believe our new monarchs should be bloodied in battle so to assess their prowess over the peasantry and indeed other monarchs. Perhaps an arm wrestle between Prince William and Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark would be suitable to get the ball rolling.

Any other ideas for the reinstitution of feudalism? (It's the same thing, right?)