The Current Status of Monarchism.

[lenin96]

The rules of succession which pertain to that particular monarchy and state.
Of coarse, they sometimes get disregarded and people get their heads chopped off.

But can you tell me why we have these rules?

[naut]

but we're gonna have this guy as head of the state. He barely finished one university (with connections), can't speak one language properly and his IQ went down the toilet because it's a bad idea when cousins marry, but he's a rightful ruler..."

Hey now, let's leave McBroon out of this.

[Incongruous]

But can you tell me why we have these rules?

Why? Well in the U.K it is enshrined in law, the reason for that being the history of the U.K. Which is very, very long.

But basically we have rules of successon because it usually saves alot of strife when a King dies.

[lenin96]

Why? Well in the U.K it is enshrined in law, the reason for that being the history of the U.K. Which is very, very long.

But basically we have rules of successon because it usually saves alot of strife when a King dies.

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

[Incongruous]

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

Yes, indeed it would be, I cannot disagree, its just that such a system of government has not as of yet been invented.

[lenin96]

Well thats true, but we have invented some nice prototypes.

Now someone help me merge Meritocracy with Communism.

[Sarmatian]

Now someone help me merge Meritocracy with Communism.

Merimunism? Commitocracy?

[lenin96]

Meri-Communism? Less creative but tells people what it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Communism is by it's nature anti-meritcratic, which is why it doesn't work.

HoreTore, care to point out where I'm so deficient?

I know I didn't make up the Terror, or the martil Law, repression, religious enforcements, or suspension of democracy under Cromwell.

He was a Tyrant.

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

I'm also very sure that from the time of Plato and Aristotle the "Good King" has repeatedly been put foward as the best form of government.

[Sarmatian]

Political thought advanced a bit in the several thousand years after Plato. Anyway, good or bad monarch - doesn't matter since they don't have any power. They're there just for show. The idea of someone being born into a position is contrary to meritocracy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know I didn't make up the Terror, or the martil Law, repression, religious enforcements, or suspension of democracy under Cromwell.

He was a Tyrant.

OK, now you are doing this deliberately. Why do you think Cromwell abolished the Parliament in the first place?

[lenin96]

Communism is by it's nature anti-meritcratic, which is why it doesn't work.

If something works or not is decided by if it is mericratic or not then Monarchies can not work as the leader is decided by birth not merit, and the same with Democracy as it's more of a popularity contest.

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

Aren't Monarchies and Democracy exclusive from each other?

[InsaneApache]

OK, now you are doing this deliberately. Why do you think Cromwell abolished the Parliament in the first place?

They stopped his expenses?

[Rhyfelwyr]

They stopped his expenses?

In a way, yes. The decided to cut the pay to the New Model Army, despite the fact that there were wars being fought against the other two of the three kingdoms. Also, the dominant faction at the time had been plotting to restore the King, and had declared war on the Netherlands, despite the fact that they were a Calvinist nation and Cromwell had been planning to allow exiled Jews to return from Amsterdam for the first time since the 13th Century. Trade rights had overruled the whole principles of the Commonwealth.

In any case, the Army was much more reflective of the wishes of the common people anyway, Parliament still had a pretty archaic structure that meant you had to be fairly well off to vote. Cromwell had been trying to reform it, but never really got beyond the planning phase due to the constant wars being fought.

[InsaneApache]

He was pretty brutal towrds the Levellers as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

He was pretty brutal towrds the Levellers as well.

He was sympathetic with them. Look at the Putney debates for example, throwing off the Norman yoke etc. I don't understand why politicians today can't conduct themselves so respectfully. Heck, the first thing Cromwell did when he took his seat in Parliament was to campaign for the release of the Leveller leader, John Lillburne.

[KukriKhan]

I'm just a revolting colonial, so what do I know? Folks have asked "By what right does a King rule?".

Wasn't it, in ancient times, the right of the sword? You're the strongest dude in the area, with the largest following = you get to lord it over the locals. Kingdoms weren't all that huge back 2,000 - 3,000 years ago (ignoring empires).

Then, with religion (and the theory of an interventionist God) getting involved, "the strongest dude" must ipso facto have been picked by God to rule (according to the holy guys), hence his vetting via coronation. If God didn't want him to be King, He wouldn't allow the coronation.

In the big picture of history, Kings have been usually acclaimed, and populations happy with them. It's when they died that things got sticky.

So it comes down to: how do you change rulers? How often, and by what means, and under what circumstances?

The old way: Strong guy gets to rule for life (NB life expectancy 35-50), then the folks who have his blood in them, on the probability that the good times will continue, god willing.

The new way: we understand blood and god and individual consent differently now. And leaders get their right to rule, not from god, or a strong right arm, but from we, the ruled. And we've come to see that, no matter how good a ruler starts out, after a time in power, he won't be as good as when he started, and needs to be replaced.

The new way may not be any more accurate or correct than the old way, but it's how we understand stuff now. If people want to call their head guy king, or president, or chief decider, or number one kahuna, what do I care? Everybody has a big boss, it seems. I don't get the big opposition to monarchy, other than they sometimes don't get picked popularly.

[Rhyfelwyr]

For the point Kukri made about God, remember that Kings can still betray the 'order established by God' just like anyone else. For example if a King abuses his powers to become absolutist, then it would be justified to rebel against him. There are a plethora of resistance theories based around such situations which emerged in early modern Europe, which laid the foundations for the ideas of natural law etc, from which many government systems today stem.

[Kadagar_AV]

I like the monarchy in sweden. As do most Swedes.

The king, in effect, has no power what so ever. He happily travels around representing Sweden. Some in the US and abroad seem to think the royal houses still have some kind of power, while this in fact is extremly rare.

About inbreeding... Contrary to popular beliefs the kings throughout the ages have had very little problems hooking up with babes. So the blood line is usually pretty strong.

Madeleine the princess of Sweden is a good example, she's pretty much a babe if you haven't noticed. Inbred?


EDIT: The reason I support the monarchy is that it pays off. Lots of tourists flock around the royal castle and bring revenues to the capital.

[Kralizec]

The French murdered Louis XVI, but this doesn't stop tourists from seeing the Versailles palace. Besides, I'm pretty sure people would visit the White House too if it was open for tourists.

A president with mostly ceremonial duties can do the same things as a constitutional monarch. And without the outrage factor in the rare occasion that the head of state does have a modicum of power. The Dutch queen appoints mediators for coalition forming after the election for example. And if I recall correctly the Luxembourgers recently had some trouble when the archduke refused to sign an act of parliament.

[lenin96]

But if the king of Sweden can't do anything important why do people like him?

[Kadagar_AV]

lenin96, in some situations it's good to have a king. As an example we had a swede held in some african prison (forgot where), they refused to send him back to sweden. The state treid to get him back for years, but it wasnt untill the swedish king sent a personal letter to the dictator that something happened. I guess the dictators penis grows a little bit when they get a personal letter from a king.

Further, it gives things such as the Nobel Prize that little extra hint of being something special. To get medals and so on from a king is a little mroe special than getting it from whoever... If for no other reason then because of the protocol that must be followed (how to eat and dress and act and so on).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He was sympathetic with them. Look at the Putney debates for example, throwing off the Norman yoke etc. I don't understand why politicians today can't conduct themselves so respectfully. Heck, the first thing Cromwell did when he took his seat in Parliament was to campaign for the release of the Leveller leader, John Lillburne.

Initially yes, Cromwell was sypathetic to Freeborn John, ultimately though the levellers were brutally supressed, just like the High Church, the Catholics and anyone who enjoyed Shakespeare or Christmas.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Political thought advanced a bit in the several thousand years after Plato. Anyway, good or bad monarch - doesn't matter since they don't have any power. They're there just for show. The idea of someone being born into a position is contrary to meritocracy.

Has political thought really advanced since Plato, trying finding a philosophical system on wiki that is really different to something he, one of his contemporaries, or students first proposed.

I'm just a revolting colonial, so what do I know? Folks have asked "By what right does a King rule?".

Wasn't it, in ancient times, the right of the sword? You're the strongest dude in the area, with the largest following = you get to lord it over the locals. Kingdoms weren't all that huge back 2,000 - 3,000 years ago (ignoring empires).

Then, with religion (and the theory of an interventionist God) getting involved, "the strongest dude" must ipso facto have been picked by God to rule (according to the holy guys), hence his vetting via coronation. If God didn't want him to be King, He wouldn't allow the coronation.

In the big picture of history, Kings have been usually acclaimed, and populations happy with them. It's when they died that things got sticky.

So it comes down to: how do you change rulers? How often, and by what means, and under what circumstances?

The old way: Strong guy gets to rule for life (NB life expectancy 35-50), then the folks who have his blood in them, on the probability that the good times will continue, god willing.

The new way: we understand blood and god and individual consent differently now. And leaders get their right to rule, not from god, or a strong right arm, but from we, the ruled. And we've come to see that, no matter how good a ruler starts out, after a time in power, he won't be as good as when he started, and needs to be replaced.

The new way may not be any more accurate or correct than the old way, but it's how we understand stuff now. If people want to call their head guy king, or president, or chief decider, or number one kahuna, what do I care? Everybody has a big boss, it seems. I don't get the big opposition to monarchy, other than they sometimes don't get picked popularly.

I think that's a good point about perception Kukri, though I naturally maintain that the English always chose their Kings when not directly conpelled by outsiders.

Of course, there has not been an English King since 1066.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But if the king of Sweden can't do anything important why do people like him?

Firstly, monarchs do have some power and do some good, as Kadagar_AV pointed out. Secondly, the President of Germany can't do much either, so why do we like (or dislike) him?

This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

That wasn't exactly a very big list. There have been a fair share of democratically elected leaders with some problems in the cranial department.

The French murdered Louis XVI, but this doesn't stop tourists from seeing the Versailles palace. Besides, I'm pretty sure people would visit the White House too if it was open for tourists.

It doesn't stop them, you are correct. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the reason many tourists flock to Great Britain is for the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. It certainly is one of the things that the British government and travel websites most commonly advertise.

[Sarmatian]

Firstly, monarchs do have some power and do some good, as Kadagar_AV pointed out. Secondly, the President of Germany can't do much either, so why do we like (or dislike) him?

Yes, they hand out medals and awards, sometimes even read a speech for a national holiday. Swedish king is forbidden to talk about political issues.

It doesn't stop them, you are correct. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the reason many tourists flock to Great Britain is for the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. It certainly is one of the things that the British government and travel websites most commonly advertise.

You advertise what you have. What is UK gonna advertise? Good food or nice weather?

I don't have the latest data, but I believe France still attracts more tourists than GB (if not, they're very close), even if GB has the advantage of having the same language as US.

[HoreTore]

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

The Kings introduced democracy here? Just what are you on?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Initially yes, Cromwell was sypathetic to Freeborn John, ultimately though the levellers were brutally supressed, just like the High Church, the Catholics and anyone who enjoyed Shakespeare or Christmas.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Of course he was not sympathetic to the mutineers, who decided to go rebel while on campaign in Ireland, despite the fact that Cromwell had allowed every division to elect representatives, effectively forming a democracy within the army in opposition to that at Westminster (which was occupied by the less radical landed interests).

And I'm glad the High Church was supressed, it was a political machine and had nothing to do with Christian religion. The disestablishement of the church was central to the idea of 'liberty of conscience', and Cromwell allowed Anglican services to take place, but without their previous status as the national church.

And I'm glad he banned Christmas too, it is a pagan practice and as such well without the scope of liberty of conscience within the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't run around telling children Santa doesn't exist (though that would be hilarious), but the religious element of Christmas should be removed, no Christian should wish to honour Baal's birthday.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Erm... ever heard of the killing times?

Of course, there has not been an English King since 1066.

Finally, you and the Puritans can agree on something!

[Brenus]

"The French murdered Louis XVI": The French executed Louis Capet after a Court proceeding where the in favor of the Death Penalty won by one voice for betraying the Country. Incidentally, this voice was from his own brother, the future Louis XVIII. He had lawyers and had times to prepare his case, things that most opponents to his regime never got.

[Furunculus]

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

because nobody has found a better way of governing a country. full stop.

there are lots of people in other countries who will say they prefer what they have, and good for them, but why change what works perfectly well for an unknown quantity which has frequently led to instability and revolution when tried in the past?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course he was not sympathetic to the mutineers, who decided to go rebel while on campaign in Ireland, despite the fact that Cromwell had allowed every division to elect representatives, effectively forming a democracy within the army in opposition to that at Westminster (which was occupied by the less radical landed interests).

Freeborn John was not a rebel, he resigned his commission when the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant on the English.

Cromwell kept him in prison, when he was like to die the warden released him so he could visit his wife. Cromwell ordered him returned to prison, he was already dead.

Your great hero persecuted a man who had once been his friend because because he disagreed with him politically.

And I'm glad the High Church was supressed, it was a political machine and had nothing to do with Christian religion. The disestablishement of the church was central to the idea of 'liberty of conscience', and Cromwell allowed Anglican services to take place, but without their previous status as the national church.

So it's freedom of Calvinism then, is it?

Had I been alive at that time I would not have had the money to flee, I would probably have had my head stoved in when I tried to stop them desicrating the cathedral by dividing it in half, or closing 7 of the 11 churches in the city. Measures taken by parliament and supported by the army.

The Book of Common Prayer, was banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer

You might want to take note of the quoted diary entry,

"Christmas Day 1657. I went to London with my wife to celebrate Christmas Day. . . Sermon ended, as [the minister] was giving us the holy sacrament, the chapel was surrounded with soldiers, and all the communicants and assembly surprised and kept prisoners by them, some in the house, others carried away... These wretched miscreants held their muskets against us as we came up to receive the sacred elements, as if they would have shot us at the altar."

So, I might have been shot as well.

And I'm glad he banned Christmas too, it is a pagan practice and as such well without the scope of liberty of conscience within the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't run around telling children Santa doesn't exist (though that would be hilarious), but the religious element of Christmas should be removed, no Christian should wish to honour Baal's birthday.

Yes, invoking pointless suffering in the name of his personal religion.

Erm... ever heard of the killing times?

Had they not tried to (sometimes violently) force their religion on others, including the King, things might have been different. That doesn't make it right, but it's worth remembering.

We restored the monarchy because, frankly, everyone hated the Republic.